SAS Sames Kremlin marketed its products abroad through subsidiaries or independent agents, depending on the territory. In Argentina, Brazil, India, Portugal and Russia it sold its products through subsidiaries under either a buy/sell distributor agreement or a commissionaire agreement. In Iran, Turkey and South Korea it sold the goods through independent agents to whom it paid a commission. The tax authorities considered that the commission paid to the independent agents was a CUP and determined the commission paid to the subsidiaries on that basis. The remuneration of the subsidiaries in excess of the commission (margin) paid to the independent agents was considered to be a transfer of profits abroad. SAS Sames Kremlin appealed against the assessment, arguing that the subsidiaries performed much more important functions than independent agents and that there were also significant geographical differences. The Administrative Court rejected the appeal and the case was then brought before the Administrative Court of Appeal. Judgement of the Court The Court upheld the decision of the Administrative Court and dismissed SAS Sames Kremlin’s appeal. Excerpt: “4. In order to justify the higher amount of remuneration paid to the subsidiaries of the group headed by SAS Sames Kremlin, compared with the amount paid to independent local intermediaries, SAS Sames Kremlin argued that the geographical markets in which the subsidiaries operated were fundamentally different from those in which the third-party sales agents operated, since they were highly strategic insofar as they were home to large car manufacturers, while the other markets were anecdotal. The subsidiaries responded to major invitations to tender, whereas the local sales agents were involved only in the supply of spare parts and small equipment, and the subsidiaries provided additional marketing, after-sales service, on-site assembly and testing of equipment, and assistance with the collection of debts, as evidenced by the significant human resources at their disposal. 5. Although the turnover achieved in Iran, Turkey and South Korea was generally lower than that achieved through the subsidiaries, it does not appear from the investigation that the characteristics of these markets justify the differences in the remuneration paid to the subsidiaries and to the independent intermediaries, since the turnover achieved by the subsidiaries is not systematically higher than the turnover achieved through independent sales agents. Even supposing that the composition of turnover achieved through independent sales agents is different from that achieved through subsidiaries, the latter including more sales of large equipment through tenders and fewer sales of spare parts and small equipment, which is not apparent from the investigation in the case of certain subsidiaries, it is common ground that the remuneration of independent sales agents does not take account of the nature of the products and equipment sold, since it is invariably set at 20% of turnover, and that the remuneration paid to subsidiaries is, irrespective of the nature of the products, equivalent to the amount of the discount they would have received if they had acted as a buyer-reseller. Finally, it is not apparent from the documents in the files that the services provided by the independent intermediaries are significantly less substantial than the services provided by the subsidiaries in their intermediation activity alone. The mere fact that the subsidiaries have greater material and human resources is not sufficient to presume, in the absence of documents in the file to that effect, that those resources were used in the context of the latter activity. It follows that, contrary to what is maintained, it does not follow from the investigation that the differences in remuneration between subsidiaries and intermediary agents can be explained by the different situation of those suppliers. Although the applicant company argues that the commissions paid to the subsidiaries take account of the margin which they would have made on a purchase/resale of the same product, such an argument is not such as to justify the abovementioned differences in remuneration between the economic agents belonging to the group and those outside it, since they are involved in the same intermediary activity, which is different from the purchase/resale activity. The various doctrines referred to, which are not expressly invoked on the basis of the provisions of Article L. 80 A of the Book of Tax Procedures, do not interpret the tax law differently from the above. 6. It follows that the tax authorities must be regarded as establishing, under the conditions referred to in point 3, the existence of an advantage, and were entitled to reintegrate it into the results of the French company, as the latter did not justify that this advantage would have had at least equivalent counterparts for it.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

Software A/S was a fully fledged Danish distributor of software an related services up until 2010 where the company was converted into a commissionaire dealing on behalf of a newly established sales and marketing hub in Switzerland. Following an audit, the Danish tax authorities issued a assessment where additional taxable income from the transfer of intangibles to Switzerland in 2010 had been determined by application of the DCF valuation model. As no transfer pricing documentation had been prepared on the transfer, the assessment was issued on a discretionary basis. Software A/S filed a complaint to the Danish Tax Court. The Tax Court found that the tax authorities did not have the authority to make a discretionary assessment. It was emphasized that the company in its transfer pricing documentation had described the relevant circumstances for the restructuring. Furthermore, the company had analyzed functions and risks and prepared comparability analyzes for transactions before and after the restructuring. However, the Tax Court found that the authorities had proved that during the restructuring, valuable intangible assets had been transferred, which were to be priced in accordance with Danish arm’s length provisions. For this purpose, the Tax Court applied the valuation model prepared by the tax authorities, but where the expected useful life of the assets was limited to only 10 years – and not indefinite as determined by the authorities – resulting in a lower value. Click here for other translation ...

The Guideline outlines ATO’s compliance approach to the transfer pricing outcomes associated with the following activities of inbound distributors: distributing goods purchased from related foreign entities for resale, and distributing digital products or services where the intellectual property in those products or services is owned by related foreign entities Such activities, together with any related activities involving the provision of ancillary services, are referred to in this Guideline as ‘inbound distribution arrangements’. This Guideline applies to inbound distribution arrangements of any scale. The framework in the Guideline is used to assess the transfer pricing risk of inbound distribution arrangements and tailor our engagement with you. Where this Guideline applies, we rate the transfer pricing risk of your inbound distribution arrangements having regard to a combination of quantitative and qualitative factors. If an inbound distribution arrangements fall outside the low transfer pricing risk category, the transfer pricing outcomes of the arrangements can be expected to be monitor, tested and/or verified. The framework set out in the Guideline can be used to: assess the transfer pricing risk of inbound distribution arrangements understand the compliance approach given the transfer pricing risk profile of the inbound distribution arrangements mitigate the transfer pricing risk of the inbound distribution arrangements Structure of the Guideline The Guideline is structured as follows: the main body sets out general principles relevant to our framework for assessing transfer pricing risk and applying compliance resources to inbound distribution arrangements to which the Guideline applies, and the schedules set out quantitative and qualitative indicators relevant to distributors generally or based on their industry sector, including those that operate in the life science, information and communication technology (ICT) and motor vehicle industries. This Guideline does not provide advice or guidance on the technical interpretation or application of Australia’s transfer pricing rules or other tax provisions ...

The Danish tax authorities were of the opinion that Microsoft Denmark had not been properly remunerated for performing marketing activities due to the fact that OEM sales to Danish customers via MNE OEM’s had not been included in the calculation of local commissions. According to the Market Development Agreement (MDA agreement) concluded between Microsoft Denmark and MIOL with effect from 1 July 2003, Microsoft Denmark received the largest amount of either a commission based on sales invoiced in Denmark or a markup on it’s costs. Microsoft Denmark’s commission did not take into account the sale of Microsoft products that occurred through the sale of computers by multinational computer manufacturers with pre-installed Microsoft software to end users in Denmark – (OEM sales). In court, Microsoft required a dismissal. In a narrow 3:2 decision the Danish Supreme Court found in favor of Microsoft. “…Microsoft Denmark’s marketing may have had some derivative effect, especially in the period around the launch in 2007 of the Windows Vista operating system, which made higher demands on the computers. On the other hand, it must be assumed that also the recommendations of Microsoft products made by the multinational computer manufacturers under agreements between, among others, Dell and Microsoft Denmark’s American parent company, which, in return, gave discounts to computer manufacturers, may have had an effect on, among other things. sales of Package licenses in Denmark, whereby Microsoft Denmark, in its remuneration, benefited from this marketing effort. The significance of the various companies’ marketing efforts and the interaction between them has not been elucidated during the case, and we find it unlikely that Microsoft Denmark’s marketing had an effect on the sale of MNA OEM licenses in the US and other countries outside Denmark, which exceeded the importance of computer manufacturers marketing for the sale of package licenses, which were included in the basis for the remuneration of Microsoft Denmark. … Based on the above, we do not find that Microsoft Denmark’s remuneration for the company’s marketing efforts was not in accordance with the arm’s length principle.” Click here for translation ...

The French Supreme Court issued a decision on 4 April 2018, concluding that a permanent establishment (PE) existed in France for purposes of determining nonresident companies’ exposure to French VAT in a case involving a transport commissionaire arrangement. The decisions clarify the criteria for determining whether a service provider will be considered to have sufficient substance in France to enable the services to be performed in an independent manner, and thus constitute a PE. A UK sea carriage commissionaire signed a client assignment contract with a French company carrying out the same activity, as well as a contract for the French company to organize and provide transport services. The UK company was required to approve any new clients or suppliers. The UK company also managed the reservation systems for clients to book the transport and communicated with the clients regarding the transport and the insurance linked to the business. The French company was responsible for the overall development of the business through identifying new clients, and it physically organized the transport services. The French company had the authority to negotiate independently with clients and suppliers in the name of the UK company, including the negotiation of prices. For this purpose, the company had three offices in France with customer service personnel to receive orders and organize the transport services, as well as a sales department. The Supreme Court concluded that the French company had sufficient human and technical resources to provide the transport commissionaire services. Accordingly, the court held the that the UK company had a PE in France, even though the company had no means of providing the transport services on its own, since the transport services were organized and carried out independently by the French company. Click here for translation ...

The Danish Tax Ministry and Microsoft meet in Court in a case where the Danish tax authorities had issued an assessment of DKK 308 million. The Danish tax authorities were of the opinion that Microsoft had not been properly remunerated for performing marketing activities due to the fact that OEM sales to Danish customers via MNE OEM’s had not been included in the calculation of local commissions. In court, Microsoft required a dismissal with reference to the fact that Sweden, Norway and Finland had either lost or resigned similar tax cases against Micorosoft. The National Court ruled in favor of Microsoft. The decision was later confirmed by the Supreme Court. Click here for translation ...

Dell Spain is part of a multinational group (Dell) that manufactures and sells computers. Dell Ireland, operates as distribution hub for most of Europe. Dell Ireland has appointed related entities to operate as its commissionaires in several countries; Dell Spain and Dell France are part of this commissionaire network. The group operates through a direct sales model and sales to private customers in Spain are conducted by Dell France, through a call centre and a web page. Dell Spain use to operate as a full-fledged distributor, but after entering into a commissionaire agreement Dell Spain now served large customers on behalf of Dell Ireland. A tax assessment was issued by the tax authorities. According to the assessment the activities in Spain constituted a Permanent Establishment of Dell Ireland to which profits had to allocated for FY 2001-2003. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court concludes that the activities of Dell Spain constitutes a Permanent Establishment of Dell Ireland under both the “dependent agent” and “fixed place of business” clauses of the treaty. The expression “acting on behalf of an enterprise” included in article 5.5 of the Spain-Ireland tax treaty does not necessarily require a direct representation between the principal and the commissionaire, but rather refers to the ability of the commissionaire to bind the principal with the third party even when there is no legal agreement between the latter two. Furthermore, the Supreme Court considers that Dell Spain cannot be deemed as an independent agent since it operated exclusively for Dell Ireland under control and instructions from the same. Regarding the “fixed place of business”, the Supreme Court states that having a place at the principal’s disposal also includes the use of such premises through another entity which carries out the principal’s activity under its supervision. This Court also explained that considering a company as a PE is not only based on its capacity to conclude contracts that bind the company but also on the functional and factual correlation between the agent and the company in the sense that the agent has sufficient authority to bind the company in its day to day business, following the instructions of the company and under its control. In regards to question of Employee stock option expences,  the Court partially upheld the claim of Dell and stated “”expenses that are correlated with income” are deductible expenses. Consequently, any expense correlated with income is an accounting expense, and if any accounting expense is a deductible expense in companies, with no exceptions other than those provided for by law” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

Gap International Sourcing was engaged in sourcing products from India to other group companies. The activity comprised of assistance in identification of vendors, provision of assistance to vendors in procurement of apparel, inspection and quality control and coordination with vendors to ensure delivery of goods to group companies. The necessary technical and intellectual basis for provision of these services were provided by the group companies. The Indian company used TNMM to benchmark the service fee at full cost plus 15%. The tax administration disregarded the functional profile and characterisation of Gap International Sourcing by assuming that the functional profile was substantially higher than those of limited risk support service providers. The tax administration found that a cost plus form of remuneration did not take into account substantial intangible assets owned by the taxpayer. Intangibles were identified to be human asset intangibles, supply chain intangibles and location savings. Based on above, the tax administration set the arm’s length remuneration at a commission of 5% on the value of the products sourced. The Tribunal held, that for determining the arm’s length price of international transaction, it is importent to take the characterisation of the taxpayer and the relatet party into consideration through a functional analysis. The Tribunal observed the following specifically for Gap International Sourcing: • No significant business risks were assumed. • No capacity to assume business risks. • No human resource intangibles were developed. • No supply chain intangibles were developed. • Location savings could not be attributed to the taxpayer. The Tribunal held that the arm’s-length cost plus mark-up for the taxpayer should be 32% (- as opposed to the cost plus 830% and 660% for the two years under consideration, derived by resorting to a commission based model of 5%). The Tribunal also stated that the arm’s length principle as determined by either the taxpayer or Revenue cannot lead to manifestly absurd or abnormal financial results ...

In the Microsoft case, the distribution activity of a French subsidiary of an American group was transferred to its Irish sister company. The French subsidiary was then converted into a sales agent of the Irish subsidiary. The Commission rate earned by the French subsidiary was reduced from 25% to 18%. The French tax authorities, taking into account the previous 25% commission rate, considered that it should not have been reduced and reinstated the corresponding income into the French company’s taxable income. To support their position, the French tax authorities conducted a benchmarking study. However, the Court of Appeals ruled that the mere fact that the commission rate has been reduced does not demonstrate the transfer of profits abroad. Moreover, the Court confirmed that the transfer of profits abroad was not proved due to the irrelevance of the methods used and of the comparables found by the French tax authorities. The companies were not suitable for comparison because they were not in the same market as Microsoft France and that some of them were not independent companies. Click here for translation ...

Prior to a business restructuring in 1999, the Spanish subsidiary, Roche Vitaminas S.A., was a full-fledged distributor, involved in manufacturing, importing, and selling the pharmaceutical products in the Spanish and Portuguese markets. In 1999 the Spanish subsidiary and the Swiss parent, Roche Vitamins Europe Ltd., entered into a manufacturing agreement and a distribution agreement. Under the manufacturing agreement, the Spanish subsidiary manufactured products  according to directions and using formulas, know-how, patents, and trademarks from the Swiss parent. These manufacturing activities were remunerated at cost plus 3.3 percent. Under the distribution (agency) agreement, the Spanish subsidiary would “represent, protect and promote” the products. These activities were remunerated at 2 percent of sales. The Spanish subsidiary was now characterized as a contract manufacturer and commission agent and the taxable profits in Spain were much lower than before the business restructuring. The Spanish tax authorities argued that the activities constituted a PE in Spain according to article 5 of DTT between Spain and Switzerland. Therefore, part of the profits should be allocated to the Spanish subsidiary in accordance with article 7 of the DTT. Supreme Court Judgement The Supreme Court held that the restructured Spanish entity created a PE of Roche Vitamins Europe Ltd. in Switzerland. The profits attributed to the PE included not only the manufacturing profits but also profits from the distribution activity performed on behalf of Roche Vitamins Europe Ltd. in Switzerland. Excerpts “The administration is therefore correct in stating that the applicant company operated in Spain by means of a permanent establishment…” “In short, what is laid down in these two paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 7 of the Spanish-Swiss Convention (in summary form) is that: (a) If a taxpayer acts in a State, of which he is not a resident, through a permanent establishment, then the profits of that taxpayer may be taxed in that State, but only to the extent that such profits are attributable to the said re-establishment. (b) This means that only the profit that the non-resident would have made in that State if he had had a full presence (as a resident), through a separate and distinct company, will be taxable in that State; but, of course, only in respect of the activity carried out by that establishment. The Audiencia Nacional, contrary to this reading of Article 7, establishes that if a non-resident company has a permanent establishment, then it must be taxed in the State in which that establishment is located for all the activities carried out in the territory of that State, even if they are not carried out through the permanent establishment. Contrary to this, and by application of the only possible interpretation of Article 7(1) and (2) (already explained and in accordance with the criteria of the OECD Tax Committee, as we shall see below), a permanent establishment should only be taxed in the State in which it is located on the profit derived from the activity carried out through the permanent establishment.” “…the sales figure must include all sales made by the permanent establishment. We consider that it is established in the file, contrary to the appellant’s submissions, that those sales must include those made to Portuguese customers, since they were made as a result of the promotional and marketing activities of Roche Vitaminas SA and are therefore attributable to it. It is also common ground that the expenses referred to by the appellant have been taken into account, as is stated in the official document dated 12 July 2002. For the rest, we refer to what was established in the settlement agreement dated 23 April 2003, as well as to the full arguments contained in the judgment under appeal.” Click here for english translation Click here for other translation ...

The Irish company Dell Products was taxable in Norway for years 2003-2006. The issue was whether Dell Products had a permenent establishment in Norway, cf. Article 5. 5 in the tax treaty between Ireland and Norway from 2000. Dell Products sold PC’s and equipment by a commission agreement in which the Irish company was Principal and the Norwegian company Dell AS was commissioner. Both the companies are part of the Dell group. Dell AS sold to customers who were large enterprises and the public sector. It was not disputed that the agreement was not legally binding on Dell Products in relation to customers. Dell Products would have a permanent establishment in Norway and may be taxable Norway, if Dell Norway had acted “on behalf of” and had the “authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the” Dell, ref. Tax Treaty Article 5. 5. Unlike the District Court and the Court of Appeal the Supreme Court did not wote in favor of the tax authorities. The wording of the article strongly support that the commissioner must bind the principal in relation to the customer. The article is identical to the OECD Model Convention, and it had the same weight that also the commentary for this support a requirement for judicial bond. Also other legal sources pointed in the same conclusion. When both the wording and other legal sources support this condition, Article 5. 5 cannot lead to an anna result. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that Dell Products did not have a permanent establishment in Norway. Click here for translation ...

The French company, Zimmer SAS, distributed products for Zimmer Limited. In 1995 the company was converted into a commissionaire (acting in its own name but on behalf of Zimmer Ltd.). The French tax authorities argued that the commissionaire was taxable as a permanent establishment of the principal, because the commissionaire could bind the principal. The Court ruled that the commissionaire could not bind the principal. Therefore, the French commissionaire could not be a permanent establishment of the principal. Click here for English translation ...