Skechers USA ITALIA SRL – a company operating in the sector of the marketing of footwear and accessories – challenged a notice of assessment, relating to FY 2004, by which, at the outcome of a tax audit, its business income was adjusted as a result of the ascertained inconsistency of the transfer prices relating to purchases of goods from the parent company (and sole shareholder) resident in Switzerland. The tax authorities had contested the uneconomic nature of the taxpayer company’s operations, given the losses recognised in various financial years, attributing the uneconomic nature to the artificial manipulation of the transfer prices of the purchases of goods and recalculating, consequently, the negative income component constituted by the aforesaid costs pursuant to Article 110, paragraph 7 of the TUIR, with the consequent non-deductibility of the same to the extent exceeding the normal value of the price of the goods in question. Skechers held that the losses did not derive from the costs of the intra-group purchases of the goods, but from the fixed start-up costs, not compensated by an adequate volume of sales, as an effect also of the competitive Italien market. The provincial and later the regional Tax Commission rejected the taxpayer’s appeal. The judge of appeal held that Skechers had not proved that the losses stemmed from the fixed start-up costs, which – moreover – were found only in relation to the Italien company and not in relation to the distribution companies located in other European countries; it then held that it was Skechers’ burden to prove the arm’s length nature of the costs. Skechers then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court set aside the decision and remanded the case to the Regional Tax Commission in a different composition. Excerpts “6. The following principle of law should therefore be stated: “on the subject of the determination of business income, the transfer pricing rules set forth in Article 110, paragraph 7, Presidential Decree no. 917 of 22 December 1986. 917 of 22 December 1986 imposes on the tax authorities the burden of proving the existence of transactions between related companies at a price other than the market price, using in this regard the transfer pricing methods described in the OECD Guidelines as soft law rules; once that burden of proof has been discharged, the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that those transactions took place for market values to be considered normal, having regard to the same stage of marketing, time and place where the goods and services were acquired or rendered, having regard – in particular – to the market context in which the taxpayer was operating”. 7. The judgment under appeal, in so far as it burdened the taxpayer company with the proof of the existence and inherent nature of the fixed operating costs, did not comply with the aforesaid principles, both in so far as the burden of proof lies with the Office, and in so far as the burden of proof must relate to the appropriateness of the transfer prices of the purchases of goods, in the market conditions in which the taxpayer company was required to operate, according to one of the criteria indicated in the OECD Guidelines. Nor can the burden of proof be discharged by alleging the mere uneconomicity of management (even if ascribed to the incidence of the aforesaid purchases), since the judge of the merits must verify the use of one of the methods indicated in the aforesaid Guidelines. The merit judge’s assessment must then be carried out in relation to the context in which the taxpayer company was operating at the time of the assessment, during which there had been a high incidence on the typical management of fixed operating costs, due to the start-up phase, which would have required the realisation of higher sales volumes in order to reach the break-even point. 8. The appeal must therefore be upheld and the contested judgment set aside, with reference back to the court a quo, in a different composition, also for the settlement of the costs of the proceedings.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation Italy vs Skechers USA Italia SRL 2908-2022 ...

In any case, the reliability of results is generally improved to the extent comparable borrowers pursue similar business strategies to the tested borrower involved in an intra-group transaction ...

For example, consider that Company A, a member of AB Group, advances funds with a term of 10 years to an associated enterprise, Company B, which will use the funding for short-term working capital purposes. This advance is the only loan in Company B’s balance sheet. AB Group’s policy and practices demonstrate that the MNE group uses a one-year revolving loan to manage short-term working capital. In this scenario, under the prevailing facts and circumstances, the accurate delineation of the actual transaction may conclude that an unrelated borrower under the same conditions of Company B would not enter into a 10-year loan agreement to manage its short-term working capital needs and the transaction would be accurately delineated as a one-year revolving loan rather than a 10-year loan. The consequences of this delineation would be that assuming the working capital requirements continue to exist, the pricing approach would be to price a series of refreshed one-year revolver loans ...

The analysis of the business strategies will also include consideration of the MNE group’s global financing policy, and the identification of existing relationships between the associated enterprises such as pre-existing loans and shareholder interests (see Annex I to Chapter V of these Guidelines about the information to be included in the master file) ...

For example, independent lenders may be prepared to lend on terms and conditions to an enterprise undertaking a merger or acquisition which might otherwise not be acceptable to the lender for the same business if it were in a steady state. In this kind of scenario, the lender may take a view over the term of the loan and consider the borrower’s business plans and forecasts, effectively acknowledging that there will be temporary changes in the financial metrics of the business for a period as it undergoes changes. Section D.1.5 of Chapter I gives other examples of business strategies that must be examined in accurately delineating the actual transaction and determining comparability ...

Business strategies must also be examined in accurately delineating the actual financial transaction and in determining comparability for transfer pricing purposes since different business strategies can have a significant effect on the terms and conditions which would be agreed between independent enterprises ...

In an ideal scenario, a comparability analysis would enable the identification of financial transactions between independent parties which match the tested transaction in all respects. With the many variables involved, it is more likely that potential comparables will differ from the tested transaction. Where differences exist between the tested transaction and any proposed comparable, it will be necessary to consider whether such differences will have a material impact on the price. If so, it may be possible, where appropriate, to make comparability adjustments to improve the reliability of a comparable. This is more likely to be achievable where the adjustment is based on a quantitative factor and there is good quality data easily available (e.g. on currency differences) than, for instance, in trying to compare loans to borrowers with qualitative differences or where data is not so readily available (e.g. borrowers with different business strategies) ...

It should also be recognised that comparability adjustments for factors other than differences in the nature of the intangibles used may be required in matters involving the use of intangibles in connection with a controlled sale of goods or services. In particular, comparability adjustments may be required for matters such as differences in markets, locational advantages, business strategies, assembled workforce, corporate synergies and other similar factors. While such factors may not be intangibles as that term is described in Section A. 1 of this chapter, they can nevertheless have important effects on arm’s length prices in matters involving the use of intangibles ...

Another example where a taxpayer’s transactions may be combined is related to portfolio approaches. A portfolio approach is a business strategy consisting of a taxpayer bundling certain transactions for the purpose of earning an appropriate return across the portfolio rather than necessarily on any single product within the portfolio. For instance, some products may be marketed by a taxpayer with a low profit or even at a loss, because they create a demand for other products and/or related services of the same taxpayer that are then sold or provided with high profits (e.g. equipment and captive aftermarket consumables, such as vending coffee machines and coffee capsules, or printers and cartridges). Similar approaches can be observed in various industries. Portfolio approaches are an example of a business strategy that may need to be taken into account in the comparability analysis and when examining the reliability of comparables. See paragraphs 1.134-1.138 on business strategies. However, as discussed in paragraphs 1.149-1.151, these considerations will not explain continued overall losses or poor performance over time. Moreover, in order to be acceptable, portfolio approaches must be reasonably targeted as they should not be used to apply a transfer pricing method at the taxpayer’s company-wide level in those cases where different transactions have different economic logic and should be segmented. See paragraphs 2.84-2.85. Finally, the above comments should not be misread as implying that it would be acceptable for one entity within an MNE group to have a below arm’s length return in order to provide benefits to another entity of the MNE group, see in particular paragraph 1.150 ...

A factor to consider in analysing losses is that business strategies may differ from MNE group to MNE group due to a variety of historic, economic, and cultural reasons. Recurring losses for a reasonable period may be justified in some cases by a business strategy to set especially low prices to achieve market penetration. For example, a producer may lower the prices of its goods, even to the extent of temporarily incurring losses, in order to enter new markets, to increase its share of an existing market, to introduce new products or services, or to discourage potential competitors. However, especially low prices should be expected for a limited period only, with the specific object of improving profits in the longer term. If the pricing strategy continues beyond a reasonable period, a transfer pricing adjustment may be appropriate, particularly where comparable data over several years show that the losses have been incurred for a period longer than that affecting comparable independent enterprises. Further, tax administrations should not accept especially low prices (e.g. pricing at marginal cost in a situation of underemployed production capacities) as arm’s length prices unless independent enterprises could be expected to have determined prices in a comparable manner ...

An additional consideration is whether there is a plausible expectation that following the business strategy will produce a return sufficient to justify its costs within a period of time that would be acceptable in an arm’s length arrangement. It is recognised that a business strategy such as market penetration may fail, and the failure does not of itself allow the strategy to be ignored for transfer pricing purposes. However, if such an expected outcome was implausible at the time of the transaction, or if the business strategy is unsuccessful but nonetheless is continued beyond what an independent enterprise would accept, the arm’s length nature of the business strategy may be doubtful and may warrant a transfer pricing adjustment. In determining what period of time an independent enterprise would accept, tax administrations may wish to consider evidence of the commercial strategies evident in the country in which the business strategy is being pursued. In the end, however, the most important consideration is whether the strategy in question could plausibly be expected to prove profitable within the foreseeable future (while recognising that the strategy might fail), and that a party operating at arm’s length would have been prepared to sacrifice profitability for a similar period under such economic circumstances and competitive conditions ...

When evaluating whether a taxpayer was following a business strategy that temporarily decreased profits in return for higher long-run profits, several factors should be considered. Tax administrations should examine the conduct of the parties to determine if it is consistent with the purported business strategy. For example, if a manufacturer charges its associated distributor a below-market price as part of a market penetration strategy, the cost savings to the distributor may be reflected in the price charged to the distributor’s customers or in greater market penetration expenses incurred by the distributor. A market penetration strategy of an MNE group could be put in place either by the manufacturer or by the distributor acting separately from the manufacturer (and the resulting cost borne by either of them), or by both of them acting in a co-ordinated manner. Furthermore, unusually intensive marketing and advertising efforts would often accompany a market penetration or market share expansion strategy. Another factor to consider is whether the nature of the relationship between the parties to the controlled transaction would be consistent with the taxpayer bearing the costs of the business strategy. For example, in arm’s length transactions a company acting solely as a sales agent with little or no responsibility for long-term market development would generally not bear the costs of a market penetration strategy. Where a company has undertaken market development activities at its own risk and enhances the value of a product through a trademark or trade name or increases goodwill associated with the product, this situation should be reflected in the analysis of functions for the purposes of establishing comparability ...

Timing issues can pose particular problems for tax administrations when evaluating whether a taxpayer is following a business strategy that distinguishes it from potential comparables. Some business strategies, such as those involving market penetration or expansion of market share, involve reductions in the taxpayer’s current profits in anticipation of increased future profits. If in the future those increased profits fail to materialise because the purported business strategy was not actually followed by the taxpayer, the appropriate transfer pricing outcome would likely require a transfer pricing adjustment. However legal constraints may prevent re-examination of earlier tax years by the tax administrations. At least in part for this reason, tax administrations may wish to subject the issue of business strategies to particular scrutiny ...

Business strategies also could include market penetration schemes. A taxpayer seeking to penetrate a market or to increase its market share might temporarily charge a price for its product that is lower than the price charged for otherwise comparable products in the same market. Furthermore, a taxpayer seeking to enter a new market or expand (or defend) its market share might temporarily incur higher costs (e.g. due to start-up costs or increased marketing efforts) and hence achieve lower profit levels than other taxpayers operating in the same market ...

Business strategies must also be examined in delineating the transaction and in determining comparability for transfer pricing purposes. Business strategies would take into account many aspects of an enterprise, such as innovation and new product development, degree of diversification, risk aversion, assessment of political changes, input of existing and planned labour laws, duration of arrangements, and other factors bearing upon the daily conduct of business. Such business strategies may need to be taken into account when determining the comparability of controlled and uncontrolled transactions and enterprises ...

SARL SRN Métal’s business is trading in industrial metal and steel products. Following an audit of the company for FY 2011 to 2012 and assessment was issued related to VAT, Transfer Pricing and Withholding Tax. In regards to transfer pricing, the administration considered that (1) the sales of goods made by SRN Métal to B-Lux Steel, established in Luxembourg, were invoiced at a lower price than that charged to the company’s other customers and (2) that commissions paid to Costa Rica – a privileged tax regime – were not deductible as SRN Metal did not provided proof that the expenses corresponded to real operations and that they are not abnormal or exaggerated. The company requested the administrative court of Strasbourg to discharge the assessments. This request was rejected by the court in a judgement issued 29 October 2019. This decision of the administrative court was appealed by the company to the Supreme Administrative Court Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Appeal of SRN Métal was rejected by the Court. Excerpts related to sales of goods to B-Lux “In order to establish a transfer of profits resulting from a reduction in the selling price of goods sold to B-Lux Steel, the department examined twenty sales transactions carried out by the applicant company with French customers at arm’s length from it. The administration also examined, within the framework of administrative assistance to the Luxembourg authorities, fifteen resale transactions by B-Lux Steel of products acquired from SRN Métal. This examination revealed that the margin charged by SARL SRN Métal for sales to B-Lux Steel was significantly lower than that charged to its other customers, without this difference being explained by the conditions of sale, the nature of the products sold or the situation of the customers. By merely alleging, without further clarification, that the results of the administrative assistance would have shown that it charged a higher margin for transactions carried out in Luxembourg, SRN Métal does not usefully challenge the evidence gathered by the department establishing the existence of a transfer of profits to Luxembourg by reducing the selling price of its goods. “It is true that SRN Métal intends to justify the lower prices charged to B-Lux Steel by its commercial interest in winning market share from Luxembourg customers and by the need to make sales to French customers limited by a credit insurance ceiling, through B-Lux Steel. However, it did not provide any evidence to support these allegations. Consequently, the administration was right to subject the profits thus transferred to Luxembourg to corporation tax. “ Excerpts related to commissions paid to Casa Vi.De.Sa.Ro in Costa Rica “The administration reintegrated into the applicant company’s taxable profits for 2011 and 2012 the sums it paid as commission to a company established in Costa Rica. It is not disputed that the company Casa Vi.De.Sa.Ro was not subject in Costa Rica to taxation on the profits it made abroad on account of the commission in question. Consequently, it is for the applicant company to prove that those commissions corresponded to real transactions and that they are not abnormal or exaggerated.” “In order to justify the reality of the business transactions which Casa Vi.De.Sa.Ro carried out on its behalf, the appellant company reiterates its argument that those commissions were intended to enable it to obtain the clientele of Arcelor Mittal Dunkerque. However, the applicant company, which does not even have a contract signed with the disputed company, does not provide any basis for its allegations. Although the applicant company maintains that it deducted exactly the same commissions in respect of other years and that the department admitted them on the occasion of another audit of the accounts, such a circumstance is not in itself sufficient to establish the reality of the services at issue during the period audited. Consequently, the administration was right to reinstate these commissions in its taxable profits.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation France vs SRN Métal CAA may 2021 ...

Fruit old s.a.s was active in wholesale of fruit and vegetables. In 2003 it purchased products at a price higher than the market price from another company owned by the same partners, Fruit new s.r.l., and resold them at a price lower than the purchase price. Both companies were domiciled in Italy. Following these transactions the entire business of Fruit old s.a.s (premises, employees and customers) was transferred to Fruit new s.r.l. The tax authorities issued an assessment where the price of the transactions had been adjusted, since it was in the taxpayer’s interest to transfer income from the Fruit old s.a.s to Fruit new s.r.l. The company argued that the transactions in question only took place over a short period of three months. It also stated that the pricing of the transactions were motivated by an “intra-group strategy”. Lower courts had ruled in favour of the company and set aside the assessment of the tax authorities. Judgement of the Court The Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the lower court and dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities. Since this was a case involving two Italien companies, the rules set forth in Article 110, on international transfer prices could not be applied. Transactions between resident intra-group companies at a price different from the normal value determined pursuant to Article 9 of the Income Tax Act are not in it self indicative of an avoidance conduct. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ITA SC 2021 ...

Fruit old s.a.s was active in wholesale of fruit and vegetables. In 2003 it purchased products at a price higher than the market price from another company owned by the same partners, Fruit new s.r.l., and resold them at a price lower than the purchase price. Both companies were domiciled in Italy. Following these transactions the entire business of Fruit old s.a.s (premises, employees and customers) was transferred to Fruit new s.r.l. The tax authorities issued an assessment where the price of the transactions had been adjusted, since it was in the taxpayer’s interest to transfer income from the Fruit old s.a.s to Fruit new s.r.l. The company argued that the transactions in question only took place over a short period of three months. It also stated that the pricing of the transactions were motivated by an “intra-group strategy”. Lower courts had ruled in favour of the company and set aside the assessment of the tax authorities. Judgement of the Court The Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the lower court and dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities. Since this was a case involving two Italien companies, the rules set forth in Article 110, on international transfer prices could not be applied. Transactions between resident intra-group companies at a price different from the normal value determined pursuant to Article 9 of the Income Tax Act are not in it self indicative of an avoidance conduct. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ITA SC 2021 ...

Transactions had taken place between Vibac S.p.A. and related foreign group companies related to use of trademarks and royalty/license payments. It was up to the Vibac S.p.A. to demonstrate that the remuneration received from related companies for use of the trademark of the products had been at arm’s length. According to the company the royalty had been set at a low price to ensure that the foreign subsidiaries were more competitive. An upward adjustment was issued by the tax authorities rejecting the taxpayer’s argument that the below market royalty was explained by the need to enable its foreign subsidiary to penetrate more effectively the US market. The tax authorities argued that such a strategy could only be justifiable in a limited period. The tax authorities determined the arm’s length royalty payment by application of the Resale Price Method (RPM). However, due to the uniqueness of the asset transferred, which hardly allows the identification of comparable transactions, the same circular, while not excluding that in some cases one of the basic criteria adopted for the transfer of tangible goods (comparison, resale or increased cost) may be applied, points out that it should not be overlooked that a licence agreement depends essentially on the forecasts of the result that may be achieved by the licensee in the territory to which the right of exploitation refers and that it is, therefore, necessary to develop subsidiary valuation methods, always inspired by the principle of the arm’s length price, i.e. the price that would have been agreed upon between independent undertakings. With regard to the determination of the fee concerning the use of intangible assets, the circular notes that it is greatly affected by the specific characteristics of the economic sector to which the intangible right refers and that, in general, it is commensurate with the turnover of the licensee, so that the reference to these indices is a valid initial data for the assessment of the “normal value”. Vibac S.p.A. did not approve of the assessment an brought the case to court. The court of first instance held in favour of the tax authorities. This decision was then appealed to Corte di Cassazione. Judgement of the Court The Italien Corte di Cassazione upheld the decision of the court of first instance and dismissed the appeal of Vibac S.p.A. Excerpts: Indeed, the rationale of the abovementioned domestic tax legislation is to be found in the safeguarding of the principle of free competition, as set out in Article 9 of the OECD Model Convention, which is to be interpreted in the light of the specific features of tax law on tax arbitrage. In fact, the rationale of the domestic tax rules referred to above is to be found in the safeguarding of the principle of free competition, set out in Article 9 of the OECD Model Convention, which provides for the possibility of taxing profits arising from intra-group transactions that have been governed by conditions different from those that would have been agreed between independent companies in comparable transactions carried out on the free market; it is therefore necessary to verify the economic substance of the transaction and to compare it with similar transactions carried out, in comparable circumstances, in free market conditions between independent parties and to assess its compliance with these (Court of Cassation no. 5645 of 2020, id. no. 9615 of 2019; id. 27018 of 2017). Thus, company policy, taken in itself, is not a necessary and sufficient cause of justification for derogating from the normal value rule. Since the normal value of a transaction is a function of the economic characteristics of the transaction, the transaction from which the normal value is to be derived will concern (a) goods and services of the same kind, (b) at the same marketing stage, (c) at the same time and (d) in the same market where the goods or services were acquired. In order to achieve the highest possible degree of comparability, the second part of Article 9 TUIR states that “for the determination of normal value”, reference should be made, “as far as possible, to the price lists or tariffs of the person who supplied the goods or services”. The presence of varied intra-group commercial transactions fully captures the estimative meaning of Article 9, as well as the OECD model. The adoption of the Resale Price Method is advocated, not only by Circular 22.9.1980 (No. 32/9/2267), but also and above all by the 1995 OECD Report. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation Corte di Cassazione 1232-2021 ...

In any case, the reliability of results is generally improved to the extent comparable borrowers pursue similar business strategies to the tested borrower involved in an intra-group transaction ...

For example, consider that Company A, a member of AB Group, advances funds with a term of 10 years to an associated enterprise, Company B, which will use the funding for short-term working capital purposes. This advance is the only loan in Company B’s balance sheet. AB Group’s policy and practices demonstrate that the MNE group uses a one-year revolving loan to manage short-term working capital. In this scenario, under the prevailing facts and circumstances, the accurate delineation of the actual transaction may conclude that an unrelated borrower under the same conditions of Company B would not enter into a 10-year loan agreement to manage its short-term working capital needs and the transaction would be accurately delineated as a one-year revolving loan rather than a 10-year loan. The consequences of this delineation would be that assuming the working capital requirements continue to exist, the pricing approach would be to price a series of refreshed one-year revolver loans ...

The analysis of the business strategies will also include consideration of the MNE group’s global financing policy, and the identification of existing relationships between the associated enterprises such as pre-existing loans and shareholder interests (see Annex I to Chapter V of these Guidelines about the information to be included in the master file) ...

For example, independent lenders may be prepared to lend on terms and conditions to an enterprise undertaking a merger or acquisition which might otherwise not be acceptable to the lender for the same business if it were in a steady state. In this kind of scenario, the lender may take a view over the term of the loan and consider the borrower’s business plans and forecasts, effectively acknowledging that there will be temporary changes in the financial metrics of the business for a period as it undergoes changes. Section D.1.5 of Chapter I gives other examples of business strategies that must be examined in accurately delineating the actual transaction and determining comparability ...

Business strategies must also be examined in accurately delineating the actual financial transaction and in determining comparability for transfer pricing purposes since different business strategies can have a significant effect on the terms and conditions which would be agreed between independent enterprises ...

The tax authorities of the Czech Republic issued an assessment of additional income taxes and penalties for FY 2010 and 2011, because AZETKO s.r.o. according to the tax authorities did not receive an arm’s length remuneration for administration and operation of a website and e-shop on behalf on a related party, Quantus Consulting s.r.o. AZETKO disagreed with the assessment and brought the case to court. The regional court ruled in favor of AZETKO, but the tax administration appealed the decision to the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court found the tax administrations change in pricing method under the appeal of the case unsubstantiated. The tax administration had originally applied the CUP method, but in the appeal proceedings instead used the net margin transaction method (TNMM). On that basis, the appeal was dismissed by the Court. The conditions for application of the transfer pricing provisions in Section 23(7) of the Czech Income Tax Act was summarised by the Court as follows If it is proved that the parties are related persons within the meaning of Section 23(7) of the Income Tax Act, it is for the tax administrator to prove that the prices agreed between these persons differ from the prices that would have been agreed between independent persons in normal business relations under the same or similar conditions. Therefore, the principle that in tax proceedings it is the tax subject who bears the burden of allegations in relation to its tax liability and the burden of proof in relation to these allegations does not apply (cf. The tax administrator must therefore carry out a comparison in which it must establish both the price agreed between the related parties and the normal price (compared with the average price, the so-called reference price) at which independent persons trade in a comparable commodity. A necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the adjustment of the tax base under Section 23(7) of the Income Tax Act is the existence of a price difference. In order to establish the ‘normal’ nature of the price, the administrator must be able to bear the burden of proof in relation to all relevant aspects. The tax authorities can, and usually will, determine the normal price by comparing the prices actually obtained for the same or similar commodity between genuine independent operators. However, it may determine it, in particular because of the absence or unavailability of data on such prices, only as a hypothetical estimate based on logical and rational reasoning and economic experience. On the issue of business strategy the court provided the following insights “According to the above-mentioned guidelines, a business strategy is understood as an attempt to penetrate a new market, where prices can be significantly distorted by higher costs of introducing a product to the market while applying a lower final selling price of this product, but it can also be different circumstances. In assessing this factor, the SAC agrees with the regional court that the administrative authorities assessed the business strategy only for the applicant, namely that it is an established company with an established business program. However, for the companies being compared, they did not assess this factor, and the influence of this question on the assessment of the present case cannot be ruled out without further ado.” Click here for translation 0341_5Afs_1700047_20190920095602_20191008114014_prevedeno ...

The Italian company J.T.G.P spa, a subsidiary in a multinational pharma group ALPHA J, had recorded operating losses for fiscal years 1997 to 2013, where, at a consolidated level, the group had showed positive results. According to the Italian tax authorities, the reason why the Italian company was still in operation was due to the fact that the group had an interest in keeping an international profile, and to that end the Italian company performed marketing activities benefiting the Group. An assessment was issued where the taxable income of the Italian company was added compensation for inter-company marketing services carried out by the Italian company on behalf of the group. The company argued that the pharmaceutical market and the governmental policy on the prices of medicines in Italy was the reason for the losses. In support of this claim the company submitted broad documentary evidence during the audit. Judgement of the regional Court The Court held in favor of the taxpayer. According to the Court, the company had demonstrated that the reasons for the losses were not the result of improper transfer pricing policies, but rather local market conditions – drug prices, etc. Furthermore, the court found that no conclusive evidence had been provided by the tax authorities to support the existence of “hidden” marketing services performed by the Italian company to the benefit of the group. Excerpt “The existence of losses has been demonstrated by the taxpayer where the type of products marketed and the specificity of the Italian pharmaceutical market, which is stationary as a result of the forced reduction in the prices of reimbursable drugs and the regulation of price increases for C-range products and the difficulty of competing with larger groups, have been highlighted. In addition, the company does not operate in the field of generic products but deals exclusively with general practitioners and specialists and distributes its products through a network of pharmaceutical wholesalers who, in turn, serve pharmacies throughout the country and is subject to government policies regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical products. In any event, it should be noted that, from a statutory point of view, the company had achieved positive results in 2013 and in subsequent years in terms of net income, as shown by the financial statements for the years ended 31 December 2013, 31 December 2014, 31 December 2015 and 31 December 2016 on file, nor did the Office prove that the services had resulted in an advantage for the group, having limited itself to presumptions.“ Click here for English translation Click here for other translation Italy vs Corp Commissione tributaria 1 marzo 2019, Case n. 928 ...

Corrugados del Guarco S.A. had declared losses on controlled transactions for FY 2003, 2004 and 2005 as export prices for these transactions had been set below cost and without profit margin, and also different from the price charged for that product to other independent or unrelated companies, in favour of its related company Envases Nicaragüenses S.A. According to the Corrugados del Guarco S.A. the reason why the prices of these controlled transactions had been set low was that unfair competition had made it necessary to use a commercial strategy of selling at preferential prices to the group company in Nicaragua. The tax authorities issued an assessment whereby the prices of the controlled transactions were adjusted in accordance with the arm’s length principle. Furthermore a fine was issued to the company for gross negligence. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Court dismissed the appeal of Corrugados del Guarco S.A. Excerpts from the Judgement “…Finally, and in relation to transfer pricing, on which the plaintiff argues reservation of law, it is necessary to indicate that guideline 20-03, called “Fiscal Treatment of Transfer Pricing, according to Normal Market Value”, issued by the Director General of Taxation on June 10, 2003, refers to the rules of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (hereinafter OECD), for the setting of prices between related companies. This international organisation is dedicated to contributing to the peaceful and harmonious development of relations between peoples, with an emphasis on collaboration in the global economy. In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber explained the content of the aforementioned body of norms as follows: “The guideline in question is based on the assumption that if these operations have some kind of artificial manipulation, and this is detrimental to the tax authorities, it allows the application of articles 8 and 12 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures to establish that certain transactions correspond to a market value as if they had been established between independent persons or entities that compete freely. Although there are different methodologies, to conclude that a price corresponds to a certain reality or not, the problem before the Chamber is an issue closely linked to one that arises for any operator of law that must apply rules that seek to compensate forms of abuse of law or that do not correspond to an economic reality to avoid tax liabilities” (Ruling 2012-4940 of 15 hours 37 minutes of 18 April 2012). The aforementioned court also added, on the constitutionality of the rule “our country does not need to be a member of that body to make use of certain rules or practices that contain a high degree of consensus, especially if, as in the case at hand, articles 15 and 16 of the General Law on Public Administration establish the limits to discretion, even in the absence of a law, which is precisely what is happening in the present case. This Court agrees with the Attorney General’s Office and the Minister of Finance that these are rules with a high degree of subjection to science and technique, as in the case of the general principles of accounting, where a law would not be necessary to reach a technical consensus. In this sense, those methods or techniques make it possible to arrive at a result that is as close to reality as possible, without it being necessary for them to be formally incorporated into the legal system” (ibidem). The above shows that the principle of legal reservation is not violated in the application of OECD transfer pricing methods, such as those analysed here. V.- As a second allegation, it was argued that the financial penalty was imposed without previously following a sanctioning procedure, since it only faced a determinative one.“ ” In the opinion of this Court, the arguments of the appellant also fail to break this aspect of the judgement. The court took for granted that with intent, the plaintiff sold at prices below cost and that she used an agreement with another private individual to defraud the tax authorities, therefore it cannot be indicated in this court that she did not qualify the conduct, establishing that even article 71 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, allows the sanction when it has acted with intent or mere negligence, that is to say, by negligence. The law seeks to ensure that the self-assessments, on which the country’s entire tax system is based, are made seriously and carefully, and therefore penalises fraud and negligence in the self-assessment with 25 percent of what has not been paid to the Treasury. This procedure is necessarily linked to the assessment procedure, where it is defined whether what was declared and paid by the taxpayer is in accordance with the legal system and this is clearly stated by the sentencing body, which also refers that the sanctioning procedure was carried out in the terms established by the said numeral 150 CNPT and that the right of defence was guaranteed by giving the taxpayer a hearing and resolving his appeals.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation Costa-Rica-vs-Corrugados-del-Guarco-2018-Corte-Suprema-de-Justicia ...

Recordati Industria Chimica e Farmaceutica S.p.A had been issued an assessment by the tax authorities for FY 2003 on various issues related to transfer pricing. Recordati Industria Chimica e Farmaceutica S.p.A. disagreed with the assessment and brought the case to court. The Regional Tax Commission of Lombardy (Ctr) issued a decision where it partially annulled the assessment. This decision was challenged both by the tax authorities and Recordati Industria Chimica e Farmaceutica S.p.A. Judgement of the Supreme Court Before the Supreme Court there were 29 issues to be resolved. The Supreme Court predominantly ruled in favour of the tax authorities. The court confirms that transfer pricing adjustments are applicable even in the absence of proof by the administration of a concrete tax advantage by the taxpayer. The shift of taxable income following transactions between companies belonging to the same group and subject to different national regulations, does not require the administration to prove the elusive function, but only the existence of “transactions” between companies linked at an apparently lower than normal price. The court also states that it cannot be excluded that overall business strategy can induce companies to carry out uneconomic operations in view of and in function of other benefits “(…) the essential aspect of transfer pricing does not concern the justification of the lower price from an economic point of view, but whether the discounts can be considered justified from a fiscal point of view, that is, whether they respond to the principle of free competition, in accordance with the teachings of the Supreme Court.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation Sentenza del 06_09_2017 n. 20805 - Corte di Cassazione - Sezione_Collegio 5 ...

It should also be recognised that comparability adjustments for factors other than differences in the nature of the intangibles used may be required in matters involving the use of intangibles in connection with a controlled sale of goods or services. In particular, comparability adjustments may be required for matters such as differences in markets, locational advantages, business strategies, assembled workforce, corporate synergies and other similar factors. While such factors may not be intangibles as that term is described in Section A. 1 of this chapter, they can nevertheless have important effects on arm’s length prices in matters involving the use of intangibles ...

Another example where a taxpayer’s transactions may be combined is related to portfolio approaches. A portfolio approach is a business strategy consisting of a taxpayer bundling certain transactions for the purpose of earning an appropriate return across the portfolio rather than necessarily on any single product within the portfolio. For instance, some products may be marketed by a taxpayer with a low profit or even at a loss, because they create a demand for other products and/or related services of the same taxpayer that are then sold or provided with high profits (e.g. equipment and captive aftermarket consumables, such as vending coffee machines and coffee capsules, or printers and cartridges). Similar approaches can be observed in various industries. Portfolio approaches are an example of a business strategy that may need to be taken into account in the comparability analysis and when examining the reliability of comparables. See paragraphs 1.114-1.118 on business strategies. However, as discussed in paragraphs 1.129-1.131, these considerations will not explain continued overall losses or poor performance over time. Moreover, in order to be acceptable, portfolio approaches must be reasonably targeted as they should not be used to apply a transfer pricing method at the taxpayer’s company-wide level in those cases where different transactions have different economic logic and should be segmented. See paragraphs 2.84-2.85. Finally, the above comments should not be misread as implying that it would be acceptable for one entity within an MNE group to have a below arm’s length return in order to provide benefits to another entity of the MNE group, see in particular paragraph 1.130 ...

A factor to consider in analysing losses is that business strategies may differ from MNE group to MNE group due to a variety of historic, economic, and cultural reasons. Recurring losses for a reasonable period may be justified in some cases by a business strategy to set especially low prices to achieve market penetration. For example, a producer may lower the prices of its goods, even to the extent of temporarily incurring losses, in order to enter new markets, to increase its share of an existing market, to introduce new products or services, or to discourage potential competitors. However, especially low prices should be expected for a limited period only, with the specific object of improving profits in the longer term. If the pricing strategy continues beyond a reasonable period, a transfer pricing adjustment may be appropriate, particularly where comparable data over several years show that the losses have been incurred for a period longer than that affecting comparable independent enterprises. Further, tax administrations should not accept especially low prices (e.g. pricing at marginal cost in a situation of underemployed production capacities) as arm’s length prices unless independent enterprises could be expected to have determined prices in a comparable manner ...

An additional consideration is whether there is a plausible expectation that following the business strategy will produce a return sufficient to justify its costs within a period of time that would be acceptable in an arm’s length arrangement. It is recognised that a business strategy such as market penetration may fail, and the failure does not of itself allow the strategy to be ignored for transfer pricing purposes. However, if such an expected outcome was implausible at the time of the transaction, or if the business strategy is unsuccessful but nonetheless is continued beyond what an independent enterprise would accept, the arm’s length nature of the business strategy may be doubtful and may warrant a transfer pricing adjustment. In determining what period of time an independent enterprise would accept, tax administrations may wish to consider evidence of the commercial strategies evident in the country in which the business strategy is being pursued. In the end, however, the most important consideration is whether the strategy in question could plausibly be expected to prove profitable within the foreseeable future (while recognising that the strategy might fail), and that a party operating at arm’s length would have been prepared to sacrifice profitability for a similar period under such economic circumstances and competitive conditions ...

When evaluating whether a taxpayer was following a business strategy that temporarily decreased profits in return for higher long-run profits, several factors should be considered. Tax administrations should examine the conduct of the parties to determine if it is consistent with the purported business strategy. For example, if a manufacturer charges its associated distributor a below-market price as part of a market penetration strategy, the cost savings to the distributor may be reflected in the price charged to the distributor’s customers or in greater market penetration expenses incurred by the distributor. A market penetration strategy of an MNE group could be put in place either by the manufacturer or by the distributor acting separately from the manufacturer (and the resulting cost borne by either of them), or by both of them acting in a co-ordinated manner. Furthermore, unusually intensive marketing and advertising efforts would often accompany a market penetration or market share expansion strategy. Another factor to consider is whether the nature of the relationship between the parties to the controlled transaction would be consistent with the taxpayer bearing the costs of the business strategy. For example, in arm’s length transactions a company acting solely as a sales agent with little or no responsibility for long-term market development would generally not bear the costs of a market penetration strategy. Where a company has undertaken market development activities at its own risk and enhances the value of a product through a trademark or trade name or increases goodwill associated with the product, this situation should be reflected in the analysis of functions for the purposes of establishing comparability ...

Timing issues can pose particular problems for tax administrations when evaluating whether a taxpayer is following a business strategy that distinguishes it from potential comparables. Some business strategies, such as those involving market penetration or expansion of market share, involve reductions in the taxpayer’s current profits in anticipation of increased future profits. If in the future those increased profits fail to materialise because the purported business strategy was not actually followed by the taxpayer, the appropriate transfer pricing outcome would likely require a transfer pricing adjustment. However legal constraints may prevent re-examination of earlier tax years by the tax administrations. At least in part for this reason, tax administrations may wish to subject the issue of business strategies to particular scrutiny ...

Business strategies also could include market penetration schemes. A taxpayer seeking to penetrate a market or to increase its market share might temporarily charge a price for its product that is lower than the price charged for otherwise comparable products in the same market. Furthermore, a taxpayer seeking to enter a new market or expand (or defend) its market share might temporarily incur higher costs (e.g. due to start-up costs or increased marketing efforts) and hence achieve lower profit levels than other taxpayers operating in the same market ...

Business strategies must also be examined in delineating the transaction and in determining comparability for transfer pricing purposes. Business strategies would take into account many aspects of an enterprise, such as innovation and new product development, degree of diversification, risk aversion, assessment of political changes, input of existing and planned labour laws, duration of arrangements, and other factors bearing upon the daily conduct of business. Such business strategies may need to be taken into account when determining the comparability of controlled and uncontrolled transactions and enterprises ...

L’oreal in India is engaged in manufacturing and distribution of cosmetics and beauty products. In respect of the distribution L’oreal had applied the RPM by benchmarking the gross margin of at 4o.80% against that of comparables at 14.85%. The tax administration rejected the RPM method on the basis that the L’oreal India was consistently incurring losses and the gross margins cannot be relied upon because of product differences in comparables. Accordingly, the tax administration applied Transactional Net Margin Method. L’oreal argued that the years of losses was due to a market penetration strategy in India – not non-arm’s-length pricing of transactions. The comparables had been on the Indian market much longer than L’oreal and had established themselves firmly in the Indian market. The Appellate Tribunal observed that L’oreal India buys products from its parent and sells to unrelated parties without any further processing. According to the OECD TPG, in such a situation, RPM is the most appropriate transfer pricing method. L’oreal India had also produced evidence from its parent that margin earned by the parent on supplies to L’oreal India was 2% to 4% or even less. The tax administration had not disputed these facts. The tax administrations statement, that the parent have earned higher profit, was not based on facts. The Tribunal found that profit earned by the parent was reasonable and hence there was no shifting of profits by L’oreal India to its parent. See also: India vs. Loreal 12 April 2012  and  India vs. Loreal 25 Oct. 2012 L'Oreal_India_P.Ltd,_Mumbai_vs_Assessee_on_4_May,_2016 ...

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 ...