An assessment had been issued by the tax authorites in regards of Auronext Pharma’s pricing of purchase and sales transactions with related parties. The tax authorities had rejected the CUP method applied by Auronext Pharma. “Since the comparable transactions were with related parties those transactions cannot be considered under CUP method for the purpose of benchmarking the taxpayers transactions.” Instead, the tax authorities used the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). An appeal was filed by Auronext Pharma with the ITAT. Judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal The ITAT remanded the case to the tax authorities to examine afresh the data available with respect to un-related parties and find out whether the transaction of the assessee are at arm’s length or not by applying the CUP method. Excerpt ” (…) The sole basis of rejecting the method adopted by the assessee was the transactions were between the related parties and were not un-controlled transactions. A similar view was also expressed by the DRP while passing the impugned order in paragraph 2.2.1. and also in the report filed by the TPO before us dt. 01.05.2023 (supra). 14 Undoubtedly, the assessee in the rejoinder has rebutted the contention of the TPO/DRP and had submitted that the documents/data were furnished before the DRP, of unrelated parties transactions with respect to sale of goods/products. The record shows that the assessee had filed the documents before the DRP and on account of that reason only it was contended by the assessee that the data is readily available. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the DRP/TPO is duty bound to examine the data available in respect of un-related parties and apply the CUP method to benchmark the international transactions. The assessee, in the original submissions as well as in rejoinder has given the details of unrelated parties, which are mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. In the light of the above, we deem it appropriate to remand back the matter to the file of the TPO/AO to examine afresh the data available with respect to un-related parties and find out whether the transaction of the assessee are at arm’s length or not by applying the CUP method. Needless to say,while doing so, the TPO, may not restrict to the comparables suggested by the assessee, who are unrelated parties and the TPO may be at liberty to find out any other suitable comparables having similar profile, functions and fulfil the other criteria laid down under rule 10B for CUP method.” “It may be apposite to mention that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case of the assessee, more particularly about the TNMM method and capacity utilization etc. Those issues are left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings.” India vs Auronext_Pharma_P_Ltd ITA-TP No 486-Hyd-2022 300523 ORG ...

Following an audit the tax authorities concluded that ARGO-HYTOS s.r.o. sold goods (valves, blocks and hydraulic aggregates) to related parties at a price that differed from the prices that would have been agreed between unrelated parties under the same or similar conditions. Furthermore, according to the tax authorities ARGO-HYTOS s.r.o. did not satisfactorily document the difference from those normal prices. An appeal was filed by ARGO-HYTOS s.r.o. with the Regional Court which was dismissed the action by the above-quoted judgment No 30 Af 21/2019-46 (‘the contested judgment’). In the judgement, the Regional Court concluded that ARGO-HYTOS s.r.o. had not satisfactorily demonstrated the difference between the prices agreed between it and the companies of the ARGO-HYTOS group and the prices which would have been agreed between unrelated parties under the same or similar conditions. The Regional Court held that, if the tax authorities wished to justify the reasons for the increase in the applicant’s tax liability, it was incumbent on them to prove that the prices agreed between the applicant and its connected persons differed from those which would have been agreed between independent persons in normal commercial relations under the same or similar conditions. Furthermore, it was its duty to inform the applicant of the difference and to give it time to comment and to substantiate its position. In such a case, the burden of proof would shift to the applicant. In order to fulfil its obligation, the tax authorities would have had to establish the normal price at which independent persons trade in order to compare the price agreed between related parties. The Regional Court did not find merit in the applicant’s objection that the tax authorities had wrongly excluded from the analyses carried out companies which had made a negative operating profit in the period in question. The applicant considered that this procedure was unacceptable, since, in its view, it cannot be assumed that if a comparable entity is negative in one year, it is loss-making in the long term and cannot therefore be regarded as a comparable entity. On this issue, the defendant stated that the excluded loss-making companies could not be considered comparable, since the applicant, as a contract manufacturer, could be considered to perform such functions and bear such risks as to make a reasonable stable profit. Moreover, those companies were not only excluded on the ground of loss-making but also on the ground of non-compliance with other criteria such as NACE code, independence or accounting methods. The Regional Court fully shared that view and therefore found the plea unfounded. On the question of the comparability of the sample of independent companies and the method of calculating the interquartile range, the Regional Court stated that the defendant agreed with the tax authorities which, after assessing the entities included by the applicant in the analysis comparing prices between related and unrelated entities in normal relations under similar or comparable conditions, concluded that none of those companies was comparable to the applicant. Therefore, the tax administration prepared its own SA5 analysis, which included seven companies that could be considered as comparable independent entities. For these companies, the interquartile range of EBIT margin values was found to be between 4,10 % and 8,19 % for the tax years under review, based on data for 2011 and 2013. The Regional Court agreed with this conclusion and thus found the procedure followed by the tax administrator and the defendant to be lawful and factually correct. An appeal was then filed with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgement of the Court The Supreme Administrative Court ruled in favor of ARGO-HYTOS s.r.o. Excerpts (Unofficial English Translation) “[22] The Supreme Administrative Court did not accept the complainant’s arguments that the law does not provide for the obligation to use a specific database for the analysis of compliance with the arm’s length criterion and that the tax administrator should therefore have respected the fact that the complainant chose the AMADEUS database and taken into account the information available to the complainant when negotiating prices for sales of goods within the ARGO-HYTOS group of related parties, that the tax administrator did not carry out a sufficient qualitative analysis and that it rejected the use of another commercial database. From a tax perspective, it is irrelevant whether or not the complainant had the relevant information to carry out its own internal analysis on the basis of which it set the transfer prices. The fact that the prices negotiated between related parties for the sale of goods or the provision of services differ from the prices normally negotiated between unrelated parties under similar or comparable conditions can be established objectively. It is not a subjective criterion for which the degree of prudence or effort of the taxable person could be taken into account. In other words, if the prices between related parties differ from those between unrelated parties, this is an objective fact, a bare fact which has tax consequences. If the taxpayer has assessed, on the basis of the information available to it, that there is no such difference, even though that assessment is contrary to the facts, then it must bear those tax consequences – it is its responsibility to ensure that it has the relevant information on how to set prices between related parties so that the tax base does not have to be adjusted. The complainant must therefore bear the consequences of having used a database for analysis which did not contain the information necessary to meet the comparability criteria in the relevant period under analysis. [23] The Supreme Administrative Court also did not accept the complainant’s objection regarding the calculation of the weighted average. Indeed, the method used by the complainant, according to which the average operating margin is calculated for all the companies together for each individual year and then averaged over the individual years, may not be more revealing than the method actually used by the tax authorities. The tax authorities are obliged to ascertain the prices at which unrelated persons ...

The first step of the residual profit split relies on market benchmarks of profitability. Thus, the comparability considerations that are relevant for the first step of the residual profit split are those that are relevant for the methods that are used to determine market returns for the routine contributions. The second step of the residual profit split, however, may not rely so directly on market benchmarks. Thus, the reliability of the results under this method is reduced to the extent that the allocation of profits in the second step does not rely on market benchmarks ...

C. spółka z o.o. is part of a larger group and mainly (95%) sells products (metal containers) and related services to related parties. According to its transfer pricing documentation the “cost-plus” method had been used to determine the prices of products sold to related parties. The company was audited for FY 2016. According to the tax authorities, the company did not provide enough evidence to support the cost-plus method. The tax authority instead used the transactional net profit method to estimate the company’s income for the year 2016, taking into account factors such as characteristics of goods or services, functional analysis, contractual conditions, economic conditions, and economic strategy by comparing the company’s performance with similar companies over a 3 year period by using EBIT margin. As a result, the authority adjusted the company’s loss and established income based on a EBIT margin of 3.66%, resulting in additional taxable income of PLN 1,803,592.08. Judgement of the Administrative Court The Court found that the TNMM was the most appropriate method to determine the company’s income in 2016, and that the comparability analysis was carried out in accordance with the regulations and data available to the authority. However, the tax authorities have wrongly determined the income of the complainant, by referencing to its entire activity, despite the fact that 5% of the transactions are not subject to regulation under Article 11(1)-(3) of the A.p.d.o.p. Because of this, the court repealed the decision of the first-instance authority and stated that when re-examining the case, the authority should take into account the position expressed in the court’s decision. Excerpt from the judgement regarding adjustments where the result is within the inter quartile range “It is also necessary to share the Applicant’s position regarding the use of the median average, well, the authority of first instance, which was accepted by the Appellate Body, stressed on page 151 of the issued decision that the statistical analysis conducted by it used positional measures, as the comparative analysis is an approximation of the prices used in transactions between unrelated parties. In order to determine the range of prices, statistical tools in the form of quartiles (…) were used to analyse the results, the analysis carried out assuming that the appropriate range of results is the interquartile area (first quartile, median, third quartile). Hence, according to the authority, in practice, the most common assumption is that the market values are those that fall between the value of the lower quartile and the upper quartile of the sample population. The inter-quartile range is used to define the rules generally applicable in the market. It should be noted here that the inter-quartile area for 2016, ranges from 1.61% to 3.89%, so since the market value of the EBIT(2) operating margin is already the value of the bottom quartile of 1.61%, and the estimation made is to determine the margin obtained in comparable transactions by independent entities – §18 of the MF Regulation (and such market transactions are already at the level of the bottom quartile), there is no legal basis for determining the market values of EBIT(2) using the arithmetic average of the median operating margin.” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation I SA_Go 103_22 - Wyrok WSA w Gorzowie Wlkp. z 2022-06-09 ...

1 December 2021 the Polish Ministry of Finance issued Tax clarifications on transfer pricing No. 4: Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) Clarification on application of the TNMM is provided in these areas: A. Principles of TNMM use A.1. Scope of application of the method A.2. Tested party A.3. Determination of net profit margin A.4. Definition of the base A.5. Choice of profitability indicator A.6. Profitability comparison B. Criteria for comparability of transactions and entities C. Difficulties in applying TNMM D. Comparison with other methods E. Practical application of TNMM Click here for unofficial English translation Objaśnienia_nr_4_Metoda_marży_transakcyjnej_netto_1122021 (1) ...

A Oy, the parent company of group A, had not charged a royalty (the so-called concept fee) to all local companies in the group. The tax authorities had determined the level of the local companies’ arm’s length results and thus the amounts of royalties not collected from them on the basis of the results of nine comparable companies. The comparable companies’ performance levels were -0,24 %, 0,60 %, 1,07 %, 2,90 %, 3,70 %, 5,30 %, 8,40 %, 12,30 % and 13,50 %. The interquartile range of the results had been 1.1-8.4% and the median 3.7%. The tax inspectors had set the routine rate of return for all local companies at 4,5 %, which was also used by A Ltd as the basis for the concept fee. A’s taxes had been adjusted accordingly to the detriment of the company. Before the Supreme Administrative Court, A Oy claimed that the adjustment point for taxable income should be the upper limit of the full range of 13,5 % in the first instance and the upper limit of the quartile range of 8,4 % in the second instance. The Supreme Administrative Court, taking into account the number of comparable companies, the dispersion of their results and the width of the overall range, as well as the fact that the results of five comparable companies had been below the 4.5% used in the A Ltd Concept Fee scheme, held that, in determining the level of the arm’s length results of the group’s local companies, the range could have been narrowed to the interquartile range of the results of the comparable companies within the meaning of paragraph 3.57 of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines. The royalties charged to the local companies would have been at market rates if A Oy had charged the local companies a concept fee or other royalty so that the local companies’ results would have been within the interquartile range. In such a case, A Oy’s trading income would not have been lower than it would otherwise have been, within the meaning of Article 31(1) of the Tax Procedure Act, as a result of the non-arm’s length pricing. To the extent that the level of the results of the local companies had exceeded the quartile range, the amounts of the additions to the company’s taxable income should have been calculated by adjusting the results of the local companies to the arm’s length level, i.e. to the upper limit of the quartile range of 8,4 %. The Supreme Administrative Court therefore annulled the tax adjustments made to the detriment of the company and cancelled the increases in the company’s taxable income in so far as they were based on the local companies’ profit margins between 4,5 % and 8,4 % for the tax years 2010 to 2012. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation Finland vs A Oy Sep 2021 KHO-2021-127Org ...

“Yogo Food-Distributor” is a subsidiary in the “Yogo Group” and trades in spices and canned meat and vegetables from the territory of the former Yugoslavia. The main sales markets are Austria and Germany (90%), the remainder being distributed among France, Scandinavia, Great Britain and the Benelux countries. Following an audit the tax authorities issued an assessment of additional taxable income determined by way of a benchmark study into comparable businesses. Yogo Food Distributor was of the opinion that the benchmark-study did not comply with the OECD guidelines in regards of comparability factors and filed a complaint with the Court. Judgement of the Court The contested notices (corporate income tax notices for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012, each dated 13 October 2014) and the preliminary appeal decision (dated 22 September 2017) are annulled pursuant to section 278(1) BAO and the matter is referred back to the tax authority. Excerpt “In order to be able to assess the arm’s length nature of these agreements and the payments made on the basis of these agreements, it is necessary to investigate the following issues: – First, in the sense of a function and risk analysis, it must be determined which assets were used in the context of the complainant’s business activities and which risks it had to bear, in each case in relation to the years in dispute. The contract of 13 December 2002 states that the complainant had “no suppliers/customers or the necessary financial resources”. On the other hand, within the EU, it could provide “warehouse management, logistics, personal customer care, contact with forwarding agents, etc.”. It will “endeavour to explore sales-promoting ideas or identify new products that meet market demand and implement them in agreement with the O-AG”. The O-AG is obliged to “establish the first contact with the customer or to sell the goods on the Western European market”. Financial support is also promised. In payment transactions, the complainant is to act as invoicing party, but all payment flows are to go through O-AG’s accounts. – There are no findings as to which concrete tasks and activities the complainant actually fulfilled or carried out from 2002 onwards and whether the actual circumstances (the conduct of business, the distribution of tasks between the complainant and O-AG, the contracting parties’ powers and possibilities of disposition) still corresponded in the years in dispute to those at the time of the conclusion of the contract in 2002. – With regard to the Supplementary Agreement I-2010 of 26 January 2010, it must be determined which of the economic aspects cited (cost increases in sales, unchanged or reduced sales prices, increased customer bonuses) are suitable to justify a change in the amount of the commission for an individual business year in advance in view of the actual economic relations of the contracting parties (business handling, distribution of tasks, powers and possibilities of disposition) between the complainant and O-AG. – With regard to Supplementary Agreement II-2010 of 26 January 2010, it must be determined which “economic circumstances” justify the granting of a lump-sum support contribution and from which an “increased need for marketing activities and listing expenses” results, this again for a single business year in advance. – With regard to the Supplementary Agreement I-2011 of 29 March 2011, it must be determined, taking into account the results of the functional and risk analysis, to what extent the actual economic circumstances between the complainant and O-AG changed at the time of the conclusion of this agreement compared to those in 2002 (conclusion of the agreement of 13 December 2002). 12.2002), taking into account the wording in the supplementary agreement: “…The complainant thus acts as the successor supplier of Y-Deutschland customers, Y-Deutschland delivers/invoices to the complainant. All expenses/income relating to the change of distribution or the subsequent distribution are for the account/benefit of [the complainant]. O-AG assumes any existing debtor risk at the time of the sales conversion. …” Furthermore, it has to be determined which “imminent additional expenses with regard to marketing activities” are suitable to justify the waiver of the contractually agreed commission “in connection with all sales of the Y-Germany business” and a reduction of the commission (obviously meant – for the remaining sales) for a single business year in advance, this taking into account the complaint’s allegations regarding the take-over of the distribution “of Markte M for the markets Germany, Benelux and France”. In this context, the results of the investigations which led the tax office to qualify these transactions as the “purchase of a distribution area” (preliminary appeal decision) must also be mentioned. – With regard to the Supplementary Agreement I-2012 of 9 January 2012, it must be determined, taking into account the results of the functional and risk analysis, to what extent the “need for increased sales promotion measures” or a product range expansion for an upcoming business period are suitable to justify a lump sum payment of EUR 250,000 from the complainant. Insofar as the tax office, based on the results of the investigation, comes to the conclusion that the contractual agreements concluded by the complainant with O-AG stand up to an arm’s length comparison, findings are to be made, based on corresponding investigations and in compliance with the right to be heard of the parties, as to the extent to which the conclusions on the arm’s length nature of the commission amount, which were apparently drawn from the database studies in the administrative files submitted, are still considered viable, taking into account the results of the functional and risk analysis to be carried out and taking into account the objections of the complainant.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation Austria GZ RV-3100163-2018 ...

A Oy was part of the A group, whose parent company was A Corporation, a US corporation. A Oy had acted as the group’s limited risk distribution company in Finland. The transfer prices of the group companies had been determined on a mark-to-market basis using the net transaction margin method and the group companies’ operating profit on a mark-to-market basis had been determined on the basis of US GAAP, the accounting standard commonly applied within the group. The target profit level for the group’s limited risk distribution companies, including A Ltd, was set at 0,5 % in the group’s transfer pricing documentation, based on a comparables analysis. In 2011, the competent authorities of the countries of residence of the A Group’s European manufacturing companies had entered into an Advance Transfer Pricing Agreement (APA) under which transfer pricing is monitored in accordance with the Group’s common accounting standard, US GAAP, and the market-based operating profit level for the limited risk distributors is 0.5%. The tax authorities in the countries of residence of certain European limited risk distributors had also issued rulings approving a profit level of 0.5% for local distributors. A Ltd had made a deduction in its 2011 financial statements to adjust its 2010 operating profit level to match the profit level under A Group’s transfer pricing principles. The company had filed a corrected tax return for the 2010 tax year, in which the adjustment was reported as a deduction from taxable income. When the company’s tax return for the 2010 tax year had been resubmitted, the Tax Administration had considered that the company had to achieve a level of operating profit in line with market conditions on the basis of financial statements prepared in accordance with Finnish accounting legislation. In addition, the Tax Administration had removed from the comparators in the comparison file submitted by the company those peer companies whose reported annual operating profit levels had been lower than or equal to 0 %. The tax administration had set the company’s normal market operating profit at 1 %. The Supreme Administrative Court held that the level of A Oy’s arm’s length profit could be determined on the basis of US GAAP accounting standards, since the A group generally prepared its financial statements in accordance with these accounting standards and since the group monitored transfer pricing on the basis of the accounts kept in accordance with US GAAP accounting standards. The Supreme Administrative Court also considered that the prior transfer pricing agreement between the competent authorities of the countries of residence of the European manufacturing companies of the A group and the decisions of the tax authorities of the countries of residence of the other limited risk distribution companies had to be given probative value. In addition to these considerations, taking into account that loss-making peers that meet the conditions of the comparability analysis are not to be rejected merely because they suffer losses, the Supreme Administrative Court confirmed that the 0,5 % profit determined for A Ltd under US GAAP was, in the circumstances of the present case, at arm’s length. The Supreme Administrative Court did not immediately take up the issue of how to calculate the taxable income of A Oy when the company’s US GAAP profit for the financial year 2010 was 0,5 %, but annulled the decisions of the Administrative Court and the Tax Adjustment Board and the resubmitted tax return for the tax year 2010 and remitted the case to the Tax Administration for reconsideration. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation KHO2021-73ORG ...

Following an audit the tax authorities issued an assessment regarding various intra group costs of sales deducted for tax purposes by “E-S. Sales Corp”. An appeal was filed by the company. Judgement of the Tax Court The court partially upheld the assessment. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation TAIIA-R1705038TM ...

ST Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd. is a subsidiary of ST Microelectronics Pte. Ltd. which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of ST Microelectronics NV, Netherlands. ST Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd. is into the business of Integrated Circuit Design, CAD Tools and software development for its overseas group concerns. It also provides marketing support services to a group company and software development services related to design implementation and maintenance with respect to Integrated Circuits as required by guidelines/instructions. During the year under assessment, the taxpayer entered into various transactions with its Associated Enterprises. In order to benchmark its international transactions qua provision of software development services and qua provision of marketing support services ST Microelectronics used Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) with Operating Profit/Operating Cost as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) being the Most Appropriate Method (MAM), computed its own margin at 11.11% as against weighted average arithmetic mean margin of 19 comparables at 11.31% and found its international transactions at arm’s length. The Transfer Pricing Officer by applying qualitative and quantitative filters finally selected 13 comparables and computed their margin at 23.20% and thereby computed the adjustment of Rs.38,30,91,011/-. The taxpayer carried the matter before the Disputes Resolution Panel by way of filing objections who has excluded one comparable and included another comparable in the final list which resulted in a margin of 21.53%. On that basis the adjustment was revised to Rs.33,01,81,949/-. ST Microelectronics filed an appeal with the Income Tax Tribunal. Judgement of the Tribunal The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by ST Microelectronics. Click here for other translation India vs ST Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd September 2020 Delhi tax tribunal ITA No 6169-Del-2012 ...

Gulbrandsen Chemicals manufactures chemicals for industrial customers in the petrochemical and pharmaceutical industry. The Indian Subsidiary, Gulbrandsen India also sold these products to its affiliated enterprises, namely Gulbrandsen Chemicals Inc, USA, and Gulbrandsen EU Limited. In regards of the controlled transactions, the tax authorities noticed that Gulbrandsen India had shifted from use of the internal CUP method to pricing based on the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). The tax authorities were of the view that, given the facts of the case, the internal CUP was the most appropriate method. It was noted that Gulbrandsen India had sold 40% of its products to the associated enterprises, and earned a margin of PBIT/Cost at 2.07%, as against the sale of 70% of its products in the prior year and earning margin of PBIT/Cost at 3.26%. Following a decision of the Tax Tribunal, where the assessment of the tax authorities was set aside, the tax authorities filed an appeal with the High Court, Judgement of the Court The High Court dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities and upheld the decision of the Tax Tribunal. Excerpt “The Tribunal has taken into consideration the voluminous documentary evidence on record for the purpose of coming to the conclusion of adoption of TNMM by the assessee as the Most Appropriate Method of arriving at ALP.” “In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the decision of the Tribunal is correct and requires no interference and no question of law much less any substantial question of law can be said to have arisen from the impugned order of the Tribunal. In the result, these appeals fail and are hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.” India vs Gulbrandsen 2020 ...

The tax authority had set the price range for “APA Ktf’s” request for an advance pricing arrangement (APA) at 12.50 to 22.50 basis points. According to the tax authorities, it follows from points 3.61 and 3.62 of the Guidelines that it is only appropriate to adjust the arm’s length price for such transactions to a level close to the mid-point of the range if there is a comparability gap. In the present case, however, it had not been established that there are any shortcomings in comparability, so the first turn of paragraph 3.62 applies: any point in the range, including the mid-point, is in accordance with the arm’s length principle. Judgement of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal pointed out that the applicant had applied for the determination of the normal market price under Article 132/B of the Art. “[37]Defendant [tax authorities] argued in its application for review that, under paragraphs 3.61 and 3.62 of the Guidelines, it is only appropriate to adjust the arm’s length price for such transactions to a level close to the mid-point of the range if there are comparability gaps. In the present case, however, the defendant has not established that there are any shortcomings in comparability, so the first turn of point 3.61 applies: any point in the range, including the mid-point, is in line with the arm’s length principle. In other respects, the defendant argues that, even if there are no shortcomings in comparability, only the extreme values of the range can be used, and not other values, such as the mean value: this cannot be combined with the interpretative criteria required by Article 28 of the Fundamental Law. [38] In its application for review, the defendant also argued that the principle of the proper exercise of rights under Article 1(2) of the Tao Law must be taken into account when applying Article 18(1) of the Tao Law. However, no breach of that fundamental principle of the Tao Law was found in the decision of the defendant which was the subject of the judicial review, nor is it found in the upheld decision of the first instance. Page 37, paragraph 3 of the first instance decision states in general terms, without mentioning the place of the legislation, that “The tax authority’s … transfer pricing adjustment up to the nearest point of the band is not based on Article 97(6) of the Tax Code, but on the relevant provisions of the Tao. In the absence of a specific provision of authority to that effect, the court of first instance could not rule on the matter by a final judgment and, consequently, it cannot be the subject of a review procedure. In the absence of a final judgment, the Curia also failed to analyse the question, following the applicant’s counterclaim, whether transfer pricing can be regarded as a rule or tax advantage (tax exemption, tax reduction) affecting the tax liability or tax liability affected by Section 1(2) of the Tao.tv. [39] In addition to the facts of the case, the applicant was required to determine the value according to which the condition of the controlled transaction had to be corrected, pursuant to Article 18(1) of the Tao.tv. In the absence of a provision in the Tao.tv., the method of correction was, by virtue of § 31(2)(b) of the Tao.tv., the first turn of point 3.62 of the Guidelines: any point within the range corresponds to the arm’s length price. On the basis of the actual content of Article 18(1) of the Tao Law, the Court of First Instance correctly concluded that neither the APA Decision, nor the Guidelines, nor the Tao Law, implied that, in the case of several normal market prices that can be designated in a given range, the adjustment for a consideration applied outside that range can only be made to the nearest extreme value. [40] In the light of the above, the Curia upheld the judgment of the court of first instance on the basis of Paragraph 275(3) of the Hungarian Civil Code. Content of the decision in principle [41] In the case of an arm’s length price set in a decision fixing the arm’s length price (advance pricing arrangement), the consideration applied outside the arm’s length range may be adjusted not only to the nearest extreme value but also to any element of the range, in accordance with Section 18(1) of the Tao.tv.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation 35-504 ...

The Platform for Collaboration on Tax (IMF, OECD, UN and the WBG) has published a toolkit for addressing difficulties in accessing comparables Data for Transfer Pricing Analyses. The Toolkit Includes a supplementary report on addressing the information gaps on prices of Minerals Sold in an intermediate form. PUBLIC-toolkit-on-comparability-and-mineral-pricing ...

In 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 the objectivity and transparency of comparable searches for transfer pricing. JTPG-comparables-Oct-2016 ...

“Cork Portugal SA” is engaged in the production and marketing of natural wine corks and is part of a Multinational group operating in the sector of closures for the wine industry. The Portuguese tax administration issued an adjustment of EUR 337,493.97 to the taxable income for 2010 on the basis that, its sales of cork to a related company in the US – via an Irish trading company B within the group – had not been at arm’s length. Portuguese provisions of Article 63(1) of the CIRC, provides “In commercial transactions […] carried out between a taxable person and any other entity, whether or not subject to IRC, with which he is in a situation of special relations, terms or conditions substantially identical to those that would normally be contracted, accepted and practised between independent entities in comparable transactions must be contracted, accepted and practised”. The adjustment was based on a benchmark study provided by the company. Net cost plus margin of comparables (average 2007-2009)Maximum: 9,48%3rd Quartile: 6.82%Median: 5,76%,1st Quartile: 4,60%,Minimum:-2,19% In 2010, the net cost plus margin of “Cork Portugal SA” on sales to B… was 2.91% – a figure that falls within the identified full range – but outside the interquartile range. The Arbitration Tribunal upheld the transfer pricing adjustment issued by the tax authority. “The profit sharing [between Portugal and Ireland] that is concretely presented to us does not reflect the activities / responsibilities of each entity in the group, and the reasons why such a differentiated allocation of margins over operating costs, which is only 2.91% for the Applicant, is not demonstrated, while B…(which carries out an activity of “management assistance”) obtains a marketing margin of 12.4%, with its participations and responsibilities in the process being as proven to be so different.And where, as a result, in addition to the arguments already summoned, it seems to us based on the facts and the best prudence that the application of the clause in concrete advises, the choice of the median as the point that best reflects the arm’s length behaviour between comparable independent entities, in this specific case and according to the proven circumstances of the same.“ Click here for English Translation P609_2015T - 2016-05-02 - JURISPRUDENCIA Decisao Arbitral ...

This case is about an Italian company, ILPEA S.p.A, transactions with its US subsidiary. The company stated that there were substantial difference between the products sold to its subsidiary in the United States and the benchmark transactions considered by the Tax Administration – quality of the products, volumes of sales, terms of sale. These differences affected the pricing, so that these transactions could not be compared with other transactions with independent parties. The Court found that the transactions carried out with controlled companies must be evaluated according to the “normal value”, defined as the average price charged for similar goods or services with independent parties and at the same marketing stage. Therefore, “normal value” is considered to be the ordinary prices of goods and services charged at arm’s length conditions, referring in the extend possible to “pricelists” and “rates”. The Court also stated that the tax administration does not have to prove existence of tax minimization, but only the existence of transactions between affiliated companies. The taxpayer must prove that the transactions have been priced at market value. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation Italy Supreme-Court-21st-July-2015-n.-15298 ...

Wx-Distributor (a subsidiary of the Wx-group i.d.F. Bw.) is responsible for the distribution of household appliances in Austria. It is wholly owned by Z. Deliveries to Wx-Distributor are made by production companies of the Group located in Germany, Italy, France, Slovakia, Poland and Sweden with which it has concluded distribution agreements to determine transfer prices. On average Wx-Distributor had been loss-making in FY 2001-2005. Following an tax audit, the intra-group transfer prices were re-determined for the years 2001 to 2004 by the tax authorities. It was determined that the transfer prices in two years were not within the arm’s length range. The review of the tax authorities had revealed a median EBIT margin of 1.53% and on that basis the operating margin for 2001 were set at 1.5%. For the following years the margin was set at 0.9% due to changed functions (outsourcing of accounts receivable, closure of half the IT department). The resulting adjustments were treated as hidden distribution of profits to the parent company. An appeal was filed by Wx-Distributor. Judgement of the Court The Court decided predominantly in favour of the tax authorities. Excerpts “The functions and risks described above do not justify distribution agreements that do not ensure that the applicant, as a limited risk distributor, will not be able to achieve an overall (cumulative) positive operating result over a reasonable (foreseeable) period of time. This is also the case if this would be associated with higher losses for the independent production companies.” “In the view of the UFS, the use of the median in the event that the EBIT margin achieved is outside the range is to be applied in the present case because, according to the study, there is no ‘highly reliable’ range (cf. Loukota/Jirousek comments on the criticism of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2010 ÖStZ 2011) due to comparability deficiencies. Insofar as the applicant assumes that the correction of the EBIT margin to the median value constitutes an impermissible punitive taxation and possibly seeks an adjustment to the lower bandwidth value, whereby it recognisably refers to a decision of the BFH of 17 October 2001 I R 103/00, according to which an estimate is based on the upper or lower value of the bandwidth of arm’s length transfer prices, which is more favourable for the taxpayer. In addition to the existing comparability deficiencies, which in themselves justify an adjustment to the median, reference should also be made to the transfer pricing study by Baker&McKenzie from 2005, which was also submitted by the applicant. It may be true that transfer prices have to be fixed in advance, but in the case at hand no transfer prices were fixed per transaction carried out; instead, distribution agreements had been concluded in unchanged form since 1999 and the arm’s length nature of these agreements was justified by the results of comparative company studies. From the above point of view, it is permissible to use a study (Baker&McKenzie) for the further assessment of the arm’s length nature of the EBIT margin, which was prepared at a time (here 31 December 2005) that follows the period in which the net returns to be assessed were generated (2001 to 2005), but which refers to data material that originates from this period (2002 to 2004). This is because a comparison of the net returns achieved in the period under review (2001 to 2005) with comparable enterprises based on data from the years 1996 to 1999 can at best be used for planning purposes, but subsequent significant developments in the period under review (e.g. economic downturns…) are not (or cannot be) taken into account. According to Baker&McKenzie, the data material used in this process led to the result of comparable net yields with a median of 2.3% and a quartile range between 1.3% and 3.9%. An appendix to this study, which was prepared especially for the company and deals with the special features of inventory adjustment, accounts receivable and accounts payable, shows a comparable median EBIT return for the company of 2.6% with a quartile range of 1.5% to 4.1%. The values shown were achieved by comparable companies in the audit period and are consistently above the adapted median according to the transfer pricing study by Ernst & Young, which is why the adjustment to the lower range requested by the applicant is also unjustified for this reason. If the UFS bases its assessment of the arm’s length transfer price on the Ernst & Young study and uses the median achieved there, this is because it follows the applicant’s argumentation regarding the price determination required in advance and for this reason bases its considerations regarding comparable net returns on the modified Ernst & Young transfer price study. There are no other particular influencing factors that would make an adjustment of this study necessary. In view of the above considerations, the UFS assumes that the median net return of 1.49% determined in the modified comparative study by Ernst & Young submitted by the applicant is appropriate and should be applied for the audit period.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation Austria vs Distributor UFS 30-7-2012 RV-2515-W-0960673-1 ...

This case concerns the sale of extended warranties to third-party customers of Dixons, a large retail chain in the UK selling white goods and home electrical products. The DSG group captive (re)insurer in the Isle of Man (DISL) insured these extended warranties for DSG’s UK customers. Until 1997 this was structured via a third-party insurer (Cornhill) that reinsured 95% on to DISL. From 1997 onwards the warranties were offered as service contracts that were 100% insured by DISL. The dispute concerned the level of sales commissions and profit commissions received by DSG. The Tax Tribunal rejected the taxpayer’s contentions that the transfer pricing legislation did not apply to the particular series of transactions (under ICTA 88 Section 770 and Schedule 28AA) – essentially the phrases ‘facility’ (Section 770) and ‘provision’ (Schedule 28AA) were interpreted broadly so that there was something to price between DSG and DISL, despite the insertion of a third party and the absence of a recognised transaction between DSG and the other parties involved. The Tax Tribunal also rejected potentially comparable contracts that the taxpayer had used to benchmark sales commissions on similar contracts on the basis that the commission rate depended on profitability, which itself depended on the different level of loss ratios expected in relation to the products covered. A much more robust looking comparable provider of extended warranty cover offered as a benchmark for the market return on capital of DISL was also rejected owing to its differing relative bargaining power compared to DISL. This third-party re-insurer was considered to be a powerful brand providing extended ‘off-the-shelf’ warranty cover through disparate distributors – the tribunal noted that DSG had a strong brand, powerful point of sales advantage through access to customers in their shops and could easily have sourced the basic insurance provided by DISL elsewhere. The overall finding of the Tax Tribunal was that, to the extent that ‘super profits’ were available, these should be distributed between the parties according to the ability of each party to protect itself from normal competitive forces and each party’s bargaining power. The Tax Tribunal noted in this context that DISL was entirely reliant on DSG for its business. According to the facts of this case, the super profits were deemed to arise because of DSG’s point-of-sale advantage as the largest retailer of domestic electrical goods in the UK and also DSG’s past claims data. DISL was considered to possess only routine actuarial know-how and adequate capital, both of which DSG could find for itself. As a result, the tribunal thought that a profit-split approach was the most appropriate, whereby DISL was entitled to a market return on capital, with residual profit over and above this amount being returned to DSG via a profit commission. This decision offers valuable insights into consideration of the level of comparability demanded to support the use of comparable uncontrolled prices; Selection of the appropriate ‘tested party’ in seeking to benchmark a transaction; The importance of bargaining power; Approval of profit split as the most appropriate methodology; That a captive insurer that is underwriting ‘simple’ risks, particularly where the loss ratios are relatively stable and predictable, and that does not possess significant intangibles or other negotiating power, should not expect to earn more than a market return to its economic capital. UK-vs.-DSG-Retail-and-others-DIXON ...