SA Compagnie Gervais Danone was the subject of an tax audit at the end of which the tax authorities questioned, among other things, the deduction of a compensation payment of 88 million Turkish lira (39,148,346 euros) granted to the Turkish company Danone Tikvesli, in which the french company holds a minority stake. The tax authorities considered that the payment constituted an indirect transfer of profits abroad within the meaning of Article 57 of the General Tax Code and should be considered as distributed income within the meaning of Article 109(1) of the Code, subject to the withholding tax provided for in Article 119a of the Code, at the conventional rate of 15%. SA Compagnie Gervais Danone brought the tax assessment to the Administrative Court and in a decision issued 9 July 2019 the Court discharged SA Compagnie Gervais Danone from the taxes in dispute. This decision was appealed by the tax authorities and in June 2021 the Administrative Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the administrative court and decided in favor of the tax authorities. An appeal was then filed by SA Compagnie Gervais Danone with the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Conseil d’État The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal and decided in favor of SA Compagnie Gervais Danone. Excerpts from the Judgement “3. It is apparent from the documents in the files submitted to the trial judges that Compagnie Gervais Danone entered into an agreement with Danone Tikvesli, a company incorporated under Turkish law, granting the latter the right to use Groupe Danone’s dairy product trademarks, patents and know-how, of which it is the owner, in order to manufacture and sell dairy products on the Turkish market. In order to deal with the net loss of nearly 40 million euros recorded by Danone Tikvesli at the end of the 2010 financial year, which, according to the undisputed claims of the companies before the trial judges, should have led, under Turkish law, to the cessation of its business, Danone Tikvesli was granted the right to use Groupe Danone’s dairy product brands, patents and know-how, Compagnie Gervais Danone paid it a subsidy of EUR 39,148,346 in 2011, which the tax authorities allowed to be deducted only in proportion to its 22.58% stake in Danone Tikvesli. In order to justify the existence of a commercial interest such as to allow the deduction of the aid thus granted to its subsidiary, Compagnie Gervais Danone argued before the lower courts, on the one hand, the strategic importance of maintaining its presence on the Turkish dairy products market and, on the other hand, the prospect of growth in the products that it was to receive from its Turkish subsidiary by way of royalties for the exploitation of the trademarks and intangible rights that it holds. 4. On the one hand, it is clear from the statements in the judgments under appeal that, in ruling out the existence of a commercial interest on the part of Compagnie Gervais Danone in paying aid to its subsidiary, the Court relied on the fact that Danone Hayat Icecek, majority shareholder in Danone Tikvesli, also had a financial interest in preserving the reputation of the brand, which prevented Compagnie Gervais Danone from bearing the entire cost of refinancing Danone Tikvesli. In inferring that Compagnie Gervais Danone had no commercial interest from the mere existence of a financial interest on the part of Danone Tikvesli’s main shareholder in refinancing the company, the Court erred in law. 5. Secondly, it is clear from the statements in the contested judgments that, in denying that Compagnie Gervais Danone had its own commercial interest in paying aid to its subsidiary, the Court also relied on the fact that the evidence produced by that company did not make it possible to take as established the alleged prospects for growth of its products, which were contradicted by the fact that no royalties had been paid to it before 2017 by the Turkish company as remuneration for the right to exploit the trade marks and intangible rights which it held. In so ruling, the Court erred in law, whereas the fact that aid is motivated by the development of an activity which, at the date it is granted, has not resulted in any turnover or, as in the present case, in the payment of any royalties as remuneration for the grant of the right to exploit intangible assets, is nevertheless capable of conferring on such aid a commercial character where the prospects for the development of that activity do not appear, at that same date, to be purely hypothetical.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

Aisan Industry Czech, s.r.o. is a subsidiary within the Japanese Aisan Industry Group which manufactures various engine components – fuel-pump modules, throttle bodies, carburetors for independent car manufactures such as Renault and Toyota. According to the original transfer pricing documentation the Czech company was classified as a limited risk contract manufacturer within the group, but yet it had suffered operating losses for several years. Following a tax audit an assessment was issued resulting in additional corporate income tax for FY 2011 in the amount of CZK 11 897 090, and on top of that a penalty in the amount of CZK 2 379 418. The assessment resulted from application of arm’s length provisions where the profitability of Aisan Industry Czech, s.r.o. had been determined on the basis of the profitability of comparable companies – TNMM method. An appeal was filed by Aisan Industry Czech, s.r.o. with the Regional Court which – by judgment of 30 October 2019 – dismissed the appeal and confirmed the additional payment order issued by the tax authorities. In its decision the Regional Court concluded that Aisan Industry Czech, s.r.o. should have been compensated for carrying out manufacturing services to the benefit of the multinational Aisan Industry group. The court also concluded that Aisan Industry Czech, s.r.o. was in fact a contract manufacturer – as stated in the original transfer pricing documentation – and not a full-fledged manufacturer as stated in the later “updated” transfer pricing report in which the FAR profile of the company had been significantly altered after receiving the initial assessment. According to the Regional Court, it had been established that the price of the service negotiated between the Aisan Industry Czech, s.r.o. and its parent company Aisan Industry Co., Ltd. was different from the price that would have been negotiated between independent parties under the same commercial conditions. By selling products to related and unrelated parties at prices determined by the group, Aisan Industry Czech, s.r.o. did not even achieve a minimum level of operating profitability. In FY 2011 Aisan Industry Czech, s.r.o. had a negative profit margin of 3,27 %. According to the court Aisan Industry Czech, s.r.o. should have received a remuneration of CZK 61 080 700 from the Aisan group for the manufacturing services, i.e. the difference between the operating margin it would have achieved at at arm’s length, 1,26 % (the minimum of the profit margin of comparable entities), and the profits it had actually achieved -3.27 %. According to the Regional Court, it was not the pricing of the individual products that was relevant, but rather the overall set-up of Aisan Industry Czech, s.r.o.’s operation within the Aisan group as a contract manufacturer bearing disproportionate risks which were not compensated. Therefore it was not appropriate to set a reference price and analyse the individual transactions since the involvement in the group distorted both transactions with related and unrelated parties, as all the prices had been determined by other group entities. An appeal was then filed against the decision of the Regional Court with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The court fully agreed with the decision and conclusions of the Regional Court, which it considered to be correct and well reasoned. Excerpts “In the course of the tax audit, the tax administrator found, on the basis of an analysis of the transfer prices, that the complainant bore risks that were beyond its control and that this fact was not reflected in the pricing policy, which was influenced by the connected persons. The influence of related parties resulted in the complainant selling its products below its operating costs and not being compensated for those losses. ” “Given that the complainant could not influence from whom and for how much it would purchase inputs, nor to whom and for how much it would sell its products (output price), the tax authorities considered the transactions carried out to be controlled, since it was the parent company Aisan JP together with its sister companies ACE and ACA that influenced this, although the risks involved were borne by the complainant.” “As regards the plea that the defendant and the Regional Court erred in law in failing to distinguish between transactions with related parties and those with unrelated parties, that plea is also unfounded. In that regard, it should be noted that the complainant was represented by the companies of the Aisan group, which concluded the transactions to which the complainant was bound. It is clear from the commission agreements that the sister companies ACA and ACE did so in relation to all customers, irrespective of whether they were related or unrelated. The e-mail communications also show the influence of the parent company Aisan JP regarding the final approval of the sale. It is clear from the summary of the functions of the original transfer pricing report that the selection and final approval of material suppliers, setting of delivery terms, price negotiations and negotiation of delivery terms with end customers is without the influence of the complainant. These decisions are made by the parent company Aisan JP and its sister companies ACA and ACE, which also determine the final prices and quantities of products. Although the complainant sells production and purchases materials from unrelated parties, all sales plans are provided by related parties of the Aisan group…..Therefore, in the present case, all transactions carried out by the complainant are considered to be controlled transactions on the basis of a function and risk analysis. The conclusion of both the defendant and the Regional Court that it was not appropriate to analyse individual transactions, since related parties influenced all transactions, is therefore correct.” “The Regional Court and the defendant also correctly stated that the reasons given by the complainant for the negative operating profitability cannot be accepted, also because the complainant did not show negative profitability only in 2011, but it was a long-term trend from 2009 to 2012. For these reasons, the administrative authorities were justified in concluding that the ...

However, compensating adjustments are not recognised by most OECD member countries, on the grounds that the tax return should reflect the actual transactions. If compensating adjustments are permitted (or required) in the country of one associated enterprise but not permitted in the country of the other associated enterprise, double taxation may result because corresponding adjustment relief may not be available if no primary adjustment is made. The mutual agreement procedure is available to resolve difficulties presented by compensating adjustments, and competent authorities are encouraged to use their best efforts to resolve any double taxation which may arise from different country approaches to such year-end adjustments ...

At least one OECD member country has a procedure that may reduce the need for primary adjustments by allowing the taxpayer to report a transfer price for tax purposes that is, in the taxpayer’s opinion, an arm’s length price for a controlled transaction, even though this price differs from the amount actually charged between the associated enterprises. This adjustment, sometimes known as a “compensating adjustment”, would be made before the tax return is filed. Compensating adjustments may facilitate the reporting of taxable income by taxpayers in accordance with the arm’s length principle, recognising that information about comparable uncontrolled transactions may not be available at the time associated enterprises establish the prices for their controlled transactions. Thus, for the purpose of lodging a correct tax return, a taxpayer would be permitted to make a compensating adjustment that would record the difference between the arm’s length price and the actual price recorded in its books and records ...

The fact that there is an enterprise making losses that is doing business with profitable members of its MNE group may suggest to the taxpayers or tax administrations that the transfer pricing should be examined. The loss enterprise may not be receiving adequate compensation from the MNE group of which it is a part in relation to the benefits derived from its activities. For example, an MNE group may need to produce a full range of products and/or services in order to remain competitive and realize an overall profit, but some of the individual product lines may regularly lose revenue. One member of the MNE group might realize consistent losses because it produces all the loss-making products while other members produce the profit-making products. An independent enterprise would perform such a service only if it were compensated by an adequate service charge. Therefore, one way to approach this type of transfer pricing problem would be to deem the loss enterprise to receive the same type of service charge that an independent enterprise would receive under the arm’s length principle ...

SA Compagnie Gervais Danone was the subject of an tax audit at the end of which the tax authorities questioned, among other things, the deduction of a compensation payment of 88 million Turkish lira (39,148,346 euros) granted to the Turkish company Danone Tikvesli, in which the french company holds a minority stake. The tax authorities considered that the payment constituted an indirect transfer of profits abroad within the meaning of Article 57 of the General Tax Code and should be considered as distributed income within the meaning of Article 109(1) of the Code, subject to the withholding tax provided for in Article 119a of the Code, at the conventional rate of 15%. SA Compagnie Gervais Danone brought the tax assessment to the administrative court. In a decision of 9 July 2019 the Court discharged SA Compagnie Gervais Danone from the taxes in dispute. This decision was appealed to Administrative Court of Appeal by the tax authorities. Judgement of the Court The Administrative Court of Appeal decided in favor of the tax authorities and annulled the decision of the administrative court. Excerpts from the Judgement “Firstly, it appears from the investigation that SA Compagnie Gervais Danone entered in its accounts for the financial year ending in 2011 a subsidy recorded under the name “loss compensation Danone Tikvesli”, paid to its Turkish subsidiary facing financial difficulties characterised by a negative net position of almost 40 million euros as at 31 December 2010, a deficit situation incompatible with Turkish regulations. The deductibility of this aid was allowed, in proportion to the 22.58% stake held by SA Compagnie Gervais Danone in this company. In view of the relationship of dependence between the applicant company and its beneficiary subsidiary, it is for SA Compagnie Gervais Danone to justify the existence of the consideration it received in return. In order to justify its commercial interest in taking over the whole of the subsidy intended to compensate for its subsidiary’s losses, Compagnie Gervais Danone argues that it was imperative for it to remain present on the Turkish dairy products market, a strategically important market with strong development potential, in order to preserve the brand’s international reputation, and that it expected to receive royalties from its subsidiary in a context of strong growth. However, the 77.48% majority shareholder, Danone Hayat Icecek, a company incorporated under Turkish law and wholly owned by Holding Internationale de boisson, the bridgehead company of the Danone group’s ‘water’ division, had an equal financial interest in preserving the brand’s reputation, so that this reason does not justify the fact that the cost of refinancing Danone Tikvesli had to be borne exclusively by SA Compagnie Gervais Danone. Although the applicant company relies on the strategic importance of the Turkish dairy products market, having regard to Turkish eating habits, its population growth, the country’s GDP growth rate and its exports to the Middle East, the extracts from two press articles from 2011 and 2015 and the undated table of figures which it produces in support of that claim do not make it possible to take the alleged growth prospects as established. Moreover, these general considerations are contradicted, as the administration argues, by the results of the exploitation by Danone Tikvesli of its exclusive licence contract for the production and distribution of Groupe Danone branded dairy products, since it is common ground that SA Compagnie Gervais Danone, which had not received any royalties from its subsidiary since the acquisition of the latter in 1998, did not benefit from any financial spin-off from this licensing agreement until 2017, the royalties received since 2017, which in any case are subsequent to the years of taxation, being moreover, as the court noted, out of all proportion to the subsidy of more than 39 million euros paid in 2011. In these circumstances, the tax authorities must be considered as providing evidence that, as the expected consideration was not such as to justify the commercial interest of SA Compagnie Gervais Danone in granting this aid to Danone Tikvesli, this subsidy constituted, for the fraction exceeding its shareholding, an abnormal act of management constituting a transfer of profits abroad within the meaning of Article 57 of the General Tax Code.” “It follows from the foregoing that the Minister for the Economy, Finance and Recovery is entitled to maintain that it was wrongly that, by the contested judgment, the Montreuil Administrative Court discharged SA Compagnie Gervais Danone from the taxes in dispute. It is therefore appropriate to annul the judgment and to make SA Gervais Danone liable for these taxes.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

The French tax authorities had issued an assessment to SARL Elie Saab France in which they asserted that the French subsidiary had not been sufficiently remunerated for additional expenses and contributions to the value of the SARL Elie Saab trademark. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the tax authorities. “It is clear from the statements in the judgment under appeal that the company Elie Saab France is responsible for the management, manufacture and distribution for the Elie Saab group of the top-of-the-range daywear line, distributes “Elie Saab” brand accessories for all the group’s entities, as well as the distribution in France and for European customers of the haute couture line, and sells, in its Paris boutique and to boutiques distributing the brand worldwide, a line of evening wear and accessories developed by the group’s Lebanese subsidiary. In addition, Elie Saab France has a showroom in the Paris boutique to present the brand’s haute couture creations, for which it pays the rent and the property fittings as well as the staff costs. Finally, it is responsible for organising the fashion shows of the “Elie Saab” brand for the haute couture and ready-to-wear collections, and is in charge of the brand’s communication and promotional campaigns. Considering that the French company, which has been largely loss-making since its first financial year ended in 2002, was incurring expenses for the benefit of the group as a whole and not for its own activity, the tax authorities reinstated, on the basis of Article 57 of the General Tax Code, in the taxable results of the financial years ended from 2007 to 2010 the amount of expenses related to the promotion of the “Elie Saab” brand and the organisation of fashion shows that had not been re-invoiced to the Lebanese parent company, a margin of 5% for those expenses that had been re-invoiced at cost price, as well as the personnel expenses of the press department.” “Firstly, by rejecting the argument of Elie Saab France that the payment by it of the disputed promotional and communication expenses, which had not been incurred solely to enhance the value of the Elie Saab brand, which was the property of its Lebanese parent company, but also for the exercise of its own activity, in particular in its capacity as the group’s profit centre for the “accessories” activity and as the person responsible for the high-end daytime ready-to-wear line, the court implicitly but necessarily ruled, in a sufficiently reasoned decision and without committing an error of law, that the tax authorities had established the assumption of responsibility by the French company for expenses incumbent on its foreign parent company and, consequently, the existence of a practice falling within the provisions of Article 57 of the General Tax Code.” “Secondly, in holding that Elie Saab France had not established the existence of consideration likely to counter the presumption of transfer of profits to the Lebanese holding company, arguing on the one hand that its parent company had not re-invoiced expenses that it had incurred for the benefit of the group’s entities, such as expenses relating to the provision of services to the group’s employees, The court did not err in law or distort the documents in the file by arguing, on the one hand, that the parent company did not re-invoice expenses that it had incurred for the benefit of the group’s entities, such as expenses related to the provision of support services, to the contract with the Fashion TV channel and to the remuneration of the two co-managers of the parent company and of the group’s creator, and, on the other hand, that the parent company did not invoice a trademark fee.” “It follows from the foregoing that Elie Saab France has no grounds for seeking the annulment of the judgment which it is challenging. Its claims under Article L. 761-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice can only be rejected.” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

One potential solution to the uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic would be to allow for the inclusion of price adjustment mechanisms in controlled transactions. This may provide for flexibility while maintaining an arm’s length outcome. In particular, this approach to the extent permissible by domestic law would allow the adjustment of prices relevant for FY2020 through adjusted invoicing or intercompany payments effectuated in a later period (likely FY2021), when more accurate information to establish the arm’s length transfer price becomes available. In jurisdictions that use the outcome-testing approach, price adjustment mechanisms to reflect updated information relevant to determining an arm’s length price are often used. A jurisdiction that temporarily allows the outcome-testing approach could also temporarily allow the use of price adjustment mechanisms for that purpose and the taxpayer would be expected to describe the application of the price adjustment mechanism in its transfer pricing documentation. Such price adjustment mechanisms (provided that they are consistent with the arm’s length principle in the particular facts and circumstances) would address the issue of the lack of contemporaneous information on comparables or other direct evidence of arm’s length behaviour in response to the pandemic. This would give flexibility to taxpayers and tax administrations while also ensuring ultimate compliance with the arm’s length principle; however, given the scope of the potential adjustments, care would need to be taken with their appropriate characterisation, any effects that the payment may have on the comparability analysis for FY2021, and their potential resultant VAT/GST and customs duty implications (which are not the subject of this chapter or guidance) ...

Where possible, and on a temporary basis during the pandemic, tax authorities that otherwise use the price-setting approach could consider allowing taxpayers, for those controlled transactions affected by the pandemic, to take into account information that becomes available after the close of the taxable year in filing their returns (where legally permissible and properly described in the transfer pricing documentation). Tax administrations could provide flexibility to allow amendments to FY 2020 tax returns such that transfer prices are set on an arm’s length basis and using available information. Also given the potential for double taxation that may arise as a result of unilateral adjustments, consideration may be given by tax administrations to: Provide for flexibility in the allowance of “compensating adjustments” to be made before the tax return is filed, where it is legally permissible, in order to allow for any available contemporaneous information to be better evaluated by taxpayers and tax administrations such that arm’s length prices can be reliably established12; or Ensure access to the MAP, or to some alternative applicable procedure, where the issue could be addressed between the respective tax administrations and early certainty could be obtained, to avoid double taxation, noting that through MAP or alternative procedures tax administrations can address issues in a non-adversarial proceeding, often achieving a negotiated settlement in the interests of all parties. 12 Paragraphs 4.38 and 4.39 of Chapter IV of the OECD TPG ...

A Oy had operated as the marketing and sales company of an international group in Finland. With the exception of 2008, the company’s operations had been unprofitable in 2003-2011, while at the same time the Group’s operations had been profitable overall. A Oy had purchased the products from the contract manufacturers belonging to the group. The method used in the Group’s transfer pricing documentation for product purchases had been characterized as a modified cost-plus / profit margin method (TNMM). The tested parties were contract manufacturers belonging to the group, for whom four comparable independent companies had been found in a search of the Amadeus database. According to the documentation, the EBITDA target margin for the Group’s contract manufacturers was set at two percent. When submitting A Oy’s tax return for 2010, the tax Office had considered, on the basis of the OECD’s 2010 Transfer Pricing Guidelines (paragraphs 1.70 – 1.72), that in independent business transactions the sales company would have received a  compensating adjustment or other equivalent credit as an adjustment. In addition, the tax office had considered that the analysis of the manufacturing companies had not made it possible to assess A Oy’s situation with sufficient reliability in relation to the long-term losses of A Oy’s operations. For this reason, the tax office had used A Oy as a test party when it had determined the company’s arm’s length profit level. Based on its report, the tax office had made an increase in the amount of taxable income reported by the company for the tax year 2010 and 2007-2009. The Supreme Administrative Court held that the loss of the group company did not in itself indicate that the company were to receive a service fee or other consideration from other group companies who could be considered to have benefited from the activities of the loss-making sales company. When determining the market conditionality of a loss-making group company’s transfer prices using the cost-plus or transaction margin method, the OECD transfer pricing guidelines require that a company for which reliable data can be found for the most closely comparable transactions be tested. Taking into account the activities performed by A Oy on the one hand and the contract manufacturers belonging to the A group on the other hand, the risks borne by them and their assets, A Oy should not have been chosen as the tested party. The contract manufacturers belonging to the group should have been selected as the companies to be tested, as had been done in the transfer price documentation of the A group. It had not been alleged in the case that A Oy’s transfer pricing had not been carried out in accordance with the transfer pricing documentation prepared by the Group or that the independent companies referred to in the Group’s transfer pricing documentation were not comparable. Therefore, and because A Oy had presented business reasons for its losses, the Supreme Administrative Court annulled the tax adjustments. Click here for translation ...

K. sp. z o.o. is a Polish company belonging to an international group. The main activity of K is local sale of goods purchased from a intra group supplier. K is best characterized as a limited risk distributor and as such should achieve an certain predetermined level of profitability as a result of its activities. In order to achieve the determined level of profitability, the group had established that, if the operating margin actually achieved by the distributor during a given period is less or more than the assumed level of profit, it will be adjusted. The year-end adjustment will not be directly related to the prices of goods purchased from the intra-group supplier and will be made after the end of each financial year. The Administrative Court decided that the year-end adjustment is not sufficiently linked to obtaining, maintaining or securing the company’s income. Hence the adjustment cannot be recognized as a deductible cost within the meaning of Article 15 Section 1 of the CIT Act. The decision of the Administrative Court was appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court by K. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the result reached by the Administrative Court according to which year-end adjustments (for the years in question) was not recognised as tax deductible costs. “Although the assessment presented was lacking in the grounds of the judgment under appeal, the manner in which the case was decided by dismissing the application is correct.” Excerpts from the reasoning of the Supreme Administrative Court “The legal problem examined in this case relates to the use by the applicant company of a mechanism applied in economic practice, in group settlements, referred to as a ‘compensating adjustment’. Generally speaking, that mechanism consists in an upward (true-up) or downward (true down) adjustment of the price between the supplier and the distributor, depending on whether the latter obtains income from sales to third parties which exceeds or is less than the margin fixed in the agreement between those entities. In the present case, the essence of the dispute concerns the tax consequences, in terms of corporation tax, of offsetting the net operating margin downwards (true down), under an agreement concluded by the applicant with the controlling company (the supplier). That means that the applicant (distributor) transfers funds to the supplier at an amount corresponding to the excess of the margin set in the contract concluded previously by those entities. There is no doubt that those entities (supplier and distributor) constitute related companies within the meaning of the transfer pricing rules. However, in the case in question, the disputed problem does not concern the assessment of whether the settlements between the supplier and the distributor comply with the arm’s of lengh rules established in the interpretation of Article 11 of the CFR in force on the date of issue of the interpretation of Article 11 of the CFR, to what extent determining whether the downward adjustment of the operating margin described in the application may be recognised as a deductible cost within the meaning of Article 15(1) of the CFR. According to this provision, in the wording referring to the realities of the case, deductible expenses are costs incurred in order to obtain revenue from a source of revenue or to preserve or secure a source of revenue, except for the costs listed in Article 16(1). Since the definition of a legal deductible expense is of a general nature, each cost (including expenditure) incurred by a taxpayer should be subject to individual assessment, with a view to examining the existence of a causal link between its incurrence and the generation of revenue (a real chance of generating revenue) or preserving or securing the source of revenue. Exceptions – both positive and negative – may of course be provided for by the legislator. However, the Supreme Administrative Court, in its composition adjudicating on this case, is of the opinion that the cash transfer incurred by the appellant to the supplier does not meet the criteria set out in Article 15(1) of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure, and in the legal status in force before 1 January 2019 there was no specific provision in the Tax Act allowing for the cost settlement of transfer price adjustments.” BE AWARE! – the result of the decision – non deductibility of downward year-end adjustments – is only applicable in Poland for years prior to 2019 “On the other hand, in the legal status in force before 2019, a typical transfer pricing arrangement concerned settlements between related companies for the direct supply of goods or services. For the sake of order, it should be recalled that until the end of 2018 the legislator, both in the Corporate Income Tax Act, the Personal Income Tax Act and the Value Added Tax Act, did not use the term “transfer prices” but used the term “transaction prices”. The term “transfer prices” was commonly used in the judicature and the literature and there is no doubt that both concepts are related to the same subject matter. The notion of “transaction price” was defined in Art. 3.10 of the Act of 29 August 1997 – Tax Ordinance (Journal of Laws of 2018, item 800 as amended). According to this regulation, the transaction price was to be understood as the price of the subject of the transaction concluded between related entities within the meaning of the tax law regulations concerning personal income tax, corporate income tax and value added tax. “As a result, in the legal status prior to 2019, the margin adjustment, meaning in fact an adjustment of the Company’s profitability, made on the basis of the adopted transfer pricing policy, does not meet the prerequisites resulting from art. 15 section 1 of the Corporate Income Tax Act, and in particular the most important prerequisite, i.e. connection with income. The very nature of the income adjustment excludes that it is a fee for services provided by the supplier to the distributor.” “The situation has fundamentally changed as of 1 January 2019, due ...

Aisan Industry Czech, s.r.o. is a subsidiary within the Japanese Aisan Industry Group which manufactures various engine components – fuel-pump modules, throttle bodies, carburetors for independent car manufactures such as Renault and Toyota. According to the original transfer pricing documentation the Czech company was classified as a limited risk contract manufacturer within the group, but yet it had suffered operating losses for several years. Following a tax audit an assessment was issued resulting in additional corporate income tax for FY 2011 in the amount of CZK 11 897 090, and on top of that a penalty in the amount of CZK 2 379 418. The assessment resulted from application of arm’s length provisions where the profitability of Aisan Industry Czech, s.r.o. had been determined on the basis of the profitability of comparable companies – TNMM method. An appeal was filed by Aisan Industry Czech, s.r.o. with the Regional Court. Judgement of the Regional Court The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the assessment of the tax authorities. In its decision the Regional Court concluded that Aisan Industry Czech, s.r.o. should have been compensated for carrying out manufacturing services to the benefit of the multinational Aisan Industry group. The court also concluded that Aisan Industry Czech, s.r.o. was in fact a contract manufacturer – as stated in the original transfer pricing documentation – and not a full-fledged manufacturer as stated in the later “updated” transfer pricing report in which the FAR profile of the company had been significantly altered after receiving the initial assessment. According to the Regional Court, it had been established that the price of the service negotiated between the Aisan Industry Czech, s.r.o. and its parent company Aisan Industry Co., Ltd. was different from the price that would have been negotiated between independent parties under the same commercial conditions. By selling products to related and unrelated parties at prices determined by the group, Aisan Industry Czech, s.r.o. did not even achieve a minimum level of operating profitability. In FY 2011 Aisan Industry Czech, s.r.o. had a negative profit margin of 3,27 %. According to the court Aisan Industry Czech, s.r.o. should have received a remuneration of CZK 61 080 700 from the Aisan group for the manufacturing services, i.e. the difference between the operating margin it would have achieved at at arm’s length, 1,26 % (the minimum of the profit margin of comparable entities), and the profits it had actually achieved -3.27 %. According to the Regional Court, it was not the pricing of the individual products that was relevant, but rather the overall set-up of Aisan Industry Czech, s.r.o.’s operation within the Aisan group as a contract manufacturer bearing disproportionate risks which were not compensated. Therefore it was not appropriate to set a reference price and analyse the individual transactions since the involvement in the group distorted both transactions with related and unrelated parties, as all the prices had been determined by other group entities. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

A/S Norske Shell – an entity within the Dutch Shell group – had operations on the Norwegian continental shelf and conducted research and development (R&D) through a subsidiary. All R&D costs were deducted in Norway. The Norwegian tax authority applied the arms length principle and issued a tax assessment. It was assumed that the R&D expense was due to a joint interest with the other upstream companies in the Shell group. The Court of Appeal found that the R&D conducted in Norway also constituted an advantage for the foreign companies within the group for which an independent company would demand compensation. The resulting reduction in revenue provided the basis for determining the company’s income on a discretionary basis in accordance with section 13-1 of the Tax Act. The tax authorities determination of the amount of the income reduction had not based on an incorrect or incomplete fact, nor did the result appear arbitrary or unreasonable. The Court of Appeal concluded that the decision was valid and rejected the company’s appeal. The judgement has later been appealed to the Supreme Court, HR-2020-122-U. Click here for translation ...

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 ...

The fact that there is an enterprise making losses that is doing business with profitable members of its MNE group may suggest to the taxpayers or tax administrations that the transfer pricing should be examined. The loss enterprise may not be receiving adequate compensation from the MNE group of which it is a part in relation to the benefits derived from its activities. For example, an MNE group may need to produce a full range of products and/or services in order to remain competitive and realize an overall profit, but some of the individual product lines may regularly lose revenue. One member of the MNE group might realize consistent losses because it produces all the loss-making products while other members produce the profit-making products. An independent enterprise would perform such a service only if it were compensated by an adequate service charge. Therefore, one way to approach this type of transfer pricing problem would be to deem the loss enterprise to receive the same type of service charge that an independent enterprise would receive under the arm’s length principle ...