In the course of an Austrian tax audit related party transactions between C GmbH, Austria, and D AG (formerly A AG), Liechtenstein, could only be traced on the basis of balance sheets and tax returns of A AG, Liechtenstein. In January 2019, the Austrian Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF), Vienna, therefore submitted a request for information to the Liechtenstein Tax Administration based on Article 25a of the DTA between Liechtenstein and Austria, concluded on 5 November 1969 and in particular as amended by the Protocol concluded on 29 January 2013, LGBl. 2013 No. 433. The ***-group is active in the field of online and direct marketing. The head office of the *** Group is in Vaduz. All intangible assets are owned by D AG in Liechtenstein and include all data (more than 100 million), IP and trademark rights, the servers, essential software, domains and know-how. Sales and marketing are carried out exclusively by C GmbH, which is based in Austria. Marketing includes the brokerage of addresses and services as well as the sending of e-mail and postal addresses to customers. The billing of services from Liechtenstein to Austria mainly involves the transfer of data with advertising consent, as well as the leasing of data with advertising consent and server services. The basis for the charging is a cooperation and marketing contract between D AG and C GmbH and there is indeed a description of the content of the contract. However, it is not clear which of these services were actually provided in the individual years. There is also no description of services that could have been used to determine the market value of the services. In order to be able to apply the arm’s length principle between the two affiliated companies, it is necessary to obtain the relevant balance sheets and tax assessment notices of D AG (formerly A AG). By letter of 24 January 2019, the tax administration informed D AG about the BMF’s request for administrative assistance and that the BMF requested the transmission of the 2014 to 2016 balance sheets and tax returns. D AG submitted several comments where it opposed the transmission of balance sheets and tax returns to the BMF. By order dated 1 July 2020, the Tax Administration decided to provide administrative assistance to the BMF Vienna based on the request of 14 January 2019 regarding 1) C GmbH and 2) A AG. A AG then filed an appeal to the Administrative Court where the main argument of the complainant was that the information requested by the requesting authority, namely the 2014, 2015 and 2016 annual accounts of the complainant and the tax accounts for the tax years 2014, 2015 and 2016, were not needed by the Austrian tax authorities. They were neither necessary, suitable and relevant for the taxation of C GmbH, Dornbirn, nor for the taxation of Mr B, Vaduz (point 1 of the complaint).” The appeal was dismissed by the Administrative Court and an appeal was then filed with the Constitutional Court. Judgement of the Constitutional Court The Court dismissed the complaint of A AG. Excerpts “Furthermore, the question of whether only past data or also developments after the valuation date are to be taken into account for the company valuation can be left open. In any case, the complainant also concedes that later data “could at best be used to check the plausibility of the business plan”. However, this is sufficient as a basis to affirm the probable relevance of the requested data as a prerequisite for the granting of tax office assistance. It is therefore not necessary to go into further detail on this appeal.” “In accordance with this case law, it is not necessary to address the question of the substantive correctness of the considerations in the decision of the Administrative Tribunal challenged here. 4.3 However, it is necessary to address the complainant’s complaint that there is also a mere sham reasoning, insofar as the Administrative Court disregards the essential question of whether the tax assessments were issued as provisional assessments and only refers to the general possibility that an assessment can be made provisionally pursuant to § 200 BAO. This reproach appears justified to the Constitutional Court. However, this is only an additional justification. Primarily, the Administrative Court considers that the requesting authority explicitly states that the tax assessment was carried out “provisionally” with regard to both the transfer prices and the exit taxation and that a final legal assessment was only possible after receipt of the requested documents and information. However, this justification is undoubtedly not a sham, especially since it is also at least free of arbitrariness according to the previous considerations. However, a mere secondary justification in addition to a justification in conformity with the constitution cannot constitute a violation of fundamental rights even if it would be unconstitutional on its own (see CJEU 2018/099, recital 3.1; CJEU 2016/087, recital 4.5 [both www.gerichtsentscheide.li]; CJEU 2005/045, LES 2007, 338 [340, recital 2.6]; see also Tobias Michael Wille, Begründungspflicht, op. cit., 564, para. 24). Accordingly, there is no need to go into further detail on this ground of appeal. 4.4 The appellant’s objection to the statement of reasons therefore also proves to be unjustified. 5 For all these reasons, the complainant has not been successful with any of her fundamental rights objections, so that the present individual complaint must be dismissed in accordance with the order.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

A request for mutual agreement and arbitration procedure between Spain and Germany was denied due to highly punishable violation of tax regulations committed by the taxpayer. The mutual agreement procedure according to the EU Arbitration Convention is of a mandatory nature and therefore leads to the elimination of double taxation if the requirements are met. However, if it is determined through legal or administrative proceedings that one of the companies involved has committed a highly punishable violation of tax regulations that result in a profit adjustment, then there is no obligation to carry out the mutual agreement and arbitration proceedings. Rather, the competent authority then has to decide on the implementation of the procedure at its due discretion. When assessing whether there has been a serious punishable violation, the person responsible for the company must be taken into account. But whether this person was actually punished for the violation of tax regulations is not decisive. The judicial determination of a criminal or fined violation of the law by this person is sufficient, which, viewed abstractly, can lead to a punishment. The decision to carry out the procedure is also at the dutiful discretion of the competent authority even if the tax adjustment and the criminally determined violation of the tax regulations with regard to the tax periods and the tax amounts do not fully match. The Bundesfinanzhof issued a decision in favor of the tax authorities. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...