Stora Enso Wood Products Ždírec s.r.o. is the Czech subsidiary of the Stora Enso Group, a multinational manufacturer of packaging and building products. In the years in question, Enso Wood Products Ždírec s.r.o. provided manufacturing services to its parent company and made losses. An audit was initiated by the tax authorities focusing on the method of determining transfer prices between related parties as defined in Article 23(7) of the Income Tax Act (which contains the Czech arm’s length principle). On the basis of a functional and risk analysis (in which it examined the extent to which the applicant depended on the decision-making mechanisms of another entity in the group), the tax administration concluded that Stora Enso Wood Products Ždírec s.r.o. did not act as a fully-fledged independent entity in its production and related activities, but as a producer with a limited functional and risk profile, since its production activities were influenced by transactions and relationships with its parent company, SEWP, which provided direct direction, coordination and management, both in terms of personnel and in terms of the competences and decision-making powers which it, as a superior entity to the applicant, possessed. The business model set up by the parent company SEWP did not therefore allow the applicant to negotiate contractual terms with its customers, nor was the applicant directly responsible for the purchase and delivery of goods. In the proceedings, the tax authorities did not dispute that the production and sale of lumber by the applicant was made both to related parties and to unrelated third parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘independent customers’). However, what was relevant in the present case was the finding that the sales to independent customers were also influenced by the ‘orders’ of SEWP’s parent company. The tax authorities made a transfer pricing adjustment based on the transactional net margin method and issued an assessment of additional income. Stora Enso Wood Products Ždírec s.r.o. filed an appeal, and in 2021 the regional court decided in favor of the company. An appeal was then filed by the tax authorities with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgement of the Court The Supreme Administrative Court overturned the lower court’s decision and ruled in favour of the tax authorities. Excerpts “…the tax authorities took the legal view that the principle that a company should not be forced to carry out transactions which are disadvantageous to it applies in a group. If a controlling person (typically the parent company) exerts its influence to implement a transaction which causes the company to suffer a pecuniary loss, the controlling person is obliged to compensate the company for the relevant loss by the end of the accounting period at the latest, or, at least within the same period, to conclude an agreement with the company in which the manner and time limit for compensating such loss are agreed. In the present case, since the applicant did not prove how the loss incurred in the determination of the sales prices applied between the applicant and its business partners (related and unrelated parties) was compensated by the parent company, nor did it explain why it was not adequately compensated for its service to the multinational Stora Enso group in its income, the tax authorities proceeded to determine the normal price and to increase the income tax base by the difference found. [18] In the light of the above, the Court finds that, in so far as the Regional Court held in the judgment under appeal that the tax authorities had unlawfully applied Section 23(7) of the Income Tax Act or Article 9 of the double taxation treaty to the applicant’s transactions with its independent customers, who were not demonstrably connected persons, that argument cannot be upheld. “ “…Since the applicant, on the instructions of its parent company, was selling its products below its operating costs and thus losing profit, the applicant should, according to the tax authorities, have received a payment from its parent company to compensate for the loss thus incurred (the difference between its profitability and that of independent comparable operators). Therefore, on the basis of the relevant evidence, the tax authorities concluded that a service was provided between the applicant and its parent company SEWP, thereby creating a relationship between them to which Section 23(7) of the Income Tax Act could be applied. The complainant then defined the service in question as ‘a service consisting in bearing risks which are beyond the control of the taxable person and which are determined by related parties’ (see paragraph 99 of the contested decision). [19] With regard to the Regional Court’s assertion that the tax authorities should have distinguished whether the business transactions were made with related parties or with unrelated third parties, since the applicant’s sales to unrelated parties amounted to 60 % in terms of both production and revenue, the Supreme Administrative Court, in agreement with the complainant, states that this issue may be relevant at the stage of determining the price of the service performed by the applicant for the parent company. In the present case, however, the Regional Court did not assess whether the price of the service was correctly set, but only whether the first condition was met, i.e. whether Section 23(7) of the Income Tax Act was applied to the relationship of related parties.” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

Bavaria S.A. is part of the SABMiller group – a multinational brewing and beverage group – and in FY2013 the company had deducted costs related to various intra-group transactions – licences, cost of sales, procurement services, administrative services, technical support, other expenses (reimbursements to related parties), etc. Following an audit, the Colombian tax authorities disallowed the deduction of some of these costs. Deductions for investments in productive assets were also disallowed. This resulted in additional taxable income and an assessment was issued together with a substantial penalty. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Court partially upheld the assessment and partially annulled it. Excerpts “At this point it is necessary to clarify that, although the Administration alleges the violation of the arm’s length principle, insofar as it considers that no independent third party, in a comparable situation, would have paid the commission under the conditions carried out by Bavaria, the truth is that this assertion is only supported by the fact that the DIAN questioned whether SABMiller Procurement actually executed the functions that corresponded to it under the Global Supply Agreement. In fact, it should be noted that neither the censured act nor the opposition to the complaint challenged the validity of the supporting documentation provided by the plaintiff, which included information related to the operation carried out with SABMiller Procurement within the framework of the Global Sourcing Agreement. In other words, with the exception of the question of the performance of the duties, the DIAN did not provide any substantive reasons to support the infringement of the arm’s length principle. There is no evidence in the file to show that the remuneration in favour of the foreign related party was not paid on market terms and, consequently, there is no support for the defendant’s assertion that an independent third party would not have paid the commission. It is extremely important to remember that, for the purposes of questioning the remuneration paid by a taxpayer in favour of a foreign related party for non-compliance with the arm’s length principle, the DIAN must exercise the broad powers of inspection granted to it by articles 684 of the Tax Statute and, particularly, the third paragraph of article 260-2 ibidem. Note that the jurisprudence of this Section13 has warned that, if in the exercise of its functions, the Administration detects irregularities in the transfer pricing study, it is obliged to contradict it through a similar report that calculates the common profit margins in the market for comparable operations, agreed between independent parties, However, there are no such documents in the file.” “Chamber notes that there is no dispute between the parties as to the nature of the expenses in question, as both agree that they correspond to administration expenses incurred by the plaintiff in favour of its parent company abroad. Likewise, the parties agree that the payments made by the plaintiff to its parent company were not subject to withholding tax as they were foreign source income. In these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the deductibility requested by the plaintiff (i.e. administration and management expenses to the head office or offices abroad) in the light of Article 124 of the Tax Statute, since for this it was essential that the expense had been subject to withholding tax, as has been held by the jurisprudence of this Section and the Constitutional Court. The fact that the plaintiff was subject to the transfer pricing regime does not change this conclusion, which, it is reiterated, the withholding tax referred to in Article 124 is not a limitation, but a condition or condition of acceptance, against which there is no exclusion whatsoever for taxpayers subject to the aforementioned regime. Finally, it should be noted that, contrary to the plaintiff’s request, the deductibility of the disputed expenditure cannot be analysed in the light of Article 122 of the Tax Statute. This is because the rule regulates the deductibility of payments abroad, as a generic restriction and not subject to economic linkage for expenses incurred abroad to obtain income from national sources and for concepts other than administration expenses in favour of the parent company or offices abroad, which are the ones at issue in the specific case. In this respect, Article 124 expressly provides that “(…) Payments in favour of such parent companies or offices abroad for other different concepts are subject to the provisions of Articles 121 and 122 of this Statute”. (highlighted by the Chamber). The charge is not upheld. Consequently, the disallowance of $47,834,099,000 for administrative operating expenses for administrative services is maintained.” “The evidence in the case file shows that, under the CSA, Bavaria took as expenses the sum of USD4,720,084 and that it recorded invoiced expenses for technical assistance of USD16,472,000, equivalent to USD30,627,037,436, the latter being reported as technical assistance expenses with its foreign affiliate, SABMiller Latin America (Miami), in the supporting documentation. These figures total USD21,192,081, which does not exceed the figure of USD24,573,83 that would correspond to Bavaria under the CSA. In turn, in the Official Review Settlement, in order to conclude that Bavaria had been assigned a percentage greater than 34.4% (which is 87.5% of the 39.3%), the DIAN said that the plaintiff assumed expenses corresponding to USD30,097,400, as a result of adding the allocation of USD13,625,400 made by SABMiller Miami to Colombia with the USD16,472,000 invoiced by SABMiller Miami Bavaria itself. However, the truth is that this addition is not justified in the CSA criteria, and in the official assessment accused, there is no explanation, at least in summary, to justify this sum. It is not possible to reach the conclusion reached by the DIAN in the official assessment accused, according to which Bavaria assumed or recorded technical assistance expenses of USD30,097,851.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

The tax authorities had issued a notice of assessment which, among other adjustments, disallowed a bad debt loss and certain costs as tax deductible. In addition, royalties paid to the parent company were adjusted on the basis of the arm’s length principle. N…S.A. appealed to the Administrative Court, which partially annulled the assessment. Both the tax authorities and N…S.A. then appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal. Judgement of the Court The Administrative Court of Appeal partially upheld the assessment of the tax authorities, but dismissed the appeal in respect of the royalty payments. According to the Court, a transfer pricing adjustment requires a reference to the terms of the comparable transaction between independent entities and a justification of the comparability factors. Extracts from the judgement related to the controlled royalty payment. “2.2.2.2 Regarding the correction for ‘transfer pricing’, the applicant submits that the Judgment erred in annulling the correction in question since the defendant calculated the royalty payable to the mother company in a manner that deviated from similar transactions between independent entities. It censures the fact that the rappel discount was not included in the computation of net sales for the purposes of computing the royalty under review. “[S]ince rappel is a discount resulting from the permanent nature of the contractual relationship between the supplier and the customer, (in the case of the Defendant, set at one year) constituting a reduction in the customer’s pecuniary benefit structurally linked to the volume of goods purchased, it can hardly be argued that it has a temporary nature, in the sense of ‘momentary’ or of ‘short duration'”; “(…) by excluding the rappel of rebates deductible from the gross value of sales, for the purposes of determining the net value of sales pursuant to Clause 32 of the Licence Agreement, the Tribunal a quo erred in fact”; “[that] on the transfer pricing regime, the AT demonstrated, by the reasoning of fact and law contained in the final inspection report that the existence of special relations between the Defendant and SPN led to the establishment of different contractual conditions, in the calculation of the royalties payable, had they been established, between independent persons”. In this regard, it was written in the contested judgment as follows: “(…) // In fact, the exceptions provided for in clause 32 of the Licence Agreement, which have a broad content, allow the framing of the so-called rappel situations, contracted by the Impugnant with its clients for a determined period of time and subject to periodic review, given their temporary nature. // Which means that, as to the form of calculation of the tax basis of the royalties payable to SPN, no violation of the provisions of the Licence Agreement has occurred. // For this reason, one cannot accept the conclusion of the Tax Authority in the inspection report, that such discounts do not fall within the group of those which, as they have a limited timeframe for their validity, should not be considered as a negative component of the sales for the purposes of calculation of the royalties, in accordance with the contract entered into between the Impugnant and SPN. // In addition, the Tax Authority failed to demonstrate in the inspection report to what extent the conditions practiced in the calculation of the royalties payable by the Impugnant to SPN diverge from the conditions that would be practiced by independent entities, not having been observed the provisions of article 77, no. 3, of the General Tax Law (LGT)”. Assessment. The grounds for the correction under examination appear in item “III.1.1.6 Transfer prices: € 780,318.77” of the Inspection Report. The relevant regulatory framework is as follows: i) “In commercial transactions, including, namely, transactions or series of transactions on goods, rights or services, as well as in financial transactions, carried out between a taxable person and any other entity, subject to IRC or not, with which it is in a situation of special relations, substantially identical terms or conditions must be contracted, accepted and practiced to those that would normally be contracted, accepted and practiced between independent entities in comparable transactions”(12). (ii) ‘When the Directorate-General for Taxation makes corrections necessary for the determination of the taxable profit by virtue of special relations with another taxpayer subject to corporation tax or personal income tax, in the determination of the taxable profit of the latter the appropriate adjustments reflecting the corrections made in the determination of the taxable profit of the former shall be made’.) (iii) “The taxable person shall, in determining the terms and conditions that would normally be agreed, accepted or carried out between independent entities, adopt the method or methods that would ensure the highest degree of comparability between his transactions or series of transactions and other transactions that are substantially the same under normal market conditions or in the absence of special relations…”.) (iv) “The most appropriate method for each transaction or series of transactions is that which is capable of providing the best and most reliable estimate of the terms and conditions that would normally be agreed, accepted or practised at arm’s length, the method which is the most appropriate to achieve the highest degree of comparability between the tied and untied transactions and between the entities selected for the comparison, which has the highest quality and the most extensive amount of information available to justify its adequate justification and application, and which involves the smallest number of adjustments to eliminate differences between comparable facts and situations”. (v) ‘Two transactions meet the conditions for comparable transactions if they are substantially the same, meaning that their relevant economic and financial characteristics are identical or sufficiently similar, so that the differences between the transactions or between the undertakings involved in them are not such as to significantly affect the terms and conditions which would prevail in a normal market situation, or, if they do, so that the necessary adjustments can be made to eliminate the material effects of the differences found’ (16). (vi) “In the case of operations ...

The definitions set forth in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(10) of this section apply to this section and §§ 1.482-2 through 1.482-9. (1) Organization includes an organization of any kind, whether a sole proprietorship, a partnership, a trust, an estate, an association, or a corporation (as each is defined or understood in the Internal Revenue Code or the regulations thereunder), irrespective of the place of organization, operation, or conduct of the trade or business, and regardless of whether it is a domestic or foreign organization, whether it is an exempt organization, or whether it is a member of an affiliated group that files a consolidated U.S. income tax return, or a member of an affiliated group that does not file a consolidated U.S. income tax return. (2) Trade or business includes a trade or business activity of any kind, regardless of whether or where organized, whether owned individually or otherwise, and regardless of the place of operation. Employment for compensation will constitute a separate trade or business from the employing trade or business. (3) Taxpayer means any person, organization, trade or business, whether or not subject to any internal revenue tax. (4) Controlled includes any kind of control, direct or indirect, whether legally enforceable or not, and however exercisable or exercised, including control resulting from the actions of two or more taxpayers acting in concert or with a common goal or purpose. It is the reality of the control that is decisive, not its form or the mode of its exercise. A presumption of control arises if income or deductions have been arbitrarily shifted. (5) Controlled taxpayer means any one of two or more taxpayers owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the same interests, and includes the taxpayer that owns or controls the other taxpayers. Uncontrolled taxpayer means any one of two or more taxpayers not owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the same interests. (6) Group, controlled group, and group of controlled taxpayers mean the taxpayers owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the same interests. (7) Transaction means any sale, assignment, lease, license, loan, advance, contribution, or any other transfer of any interest in or a right to use any property (whether tangible or intangible, real or personal) or money, however such transaction is effected, and whether or not the terms of such transaction are formally documented. A transaction also includes the performance of any services for the benefit of, or on behalf of, another taxpayer. (8) Controlled transaction or controlled transfer means any transaction or transfer between two or more members of the same group of controlled taxpayers. The term uncontrolled transaction means any transaction between two or more taxpayers that are not members of the same group of controlled taxpayers. (9) True taxable income means, in the case of a controlled taxpayer, the taxable income that would have resulted had it dealt with the other member or members of the group at arm’s length. It does not mean the taxable income resulting to the controlled taxpayer by reason of the particular contract, transaction, or arrangement the controlled taxpayer chose to make (even though such contract, transaction, or arrangement is legally binding upon the parties thereto). (10) Uncontrolled comparable means the uncontrolled transaction or uncontrolled taxpayer that is compared with a controlled transaction or taxpayer under any applicable pricing methodology. Thus, for example, under the comparable profits method, an uncontrolled comparable is any uncontrolled taxpayer from which data is used to establish a comparable operating profit ...

The purpose of section 482 is to ensure that taxpayers clearly reflect income attributable to controlled transactions and to prevent the avoidance of taxes with respect to such transactions. Section 482 places a controlled taxpayer on a tax parity with an uncontrolled taxpayer by determining the true taxable income of the controlled taxpayer. This section sets forth general principles and guidelines to be followed under section 482. Section 1.482-2 provides rules for the determination of the true taxable income of controlled taxpayers in specific situations, including controlled transactions involving loans or advances or the use of tangible property. Sections 1.482-3 through 1.482-6 provide rules for the determination of the true taxable income of controlled taxpayers in cases involving the transfer of property. Section 1.482-7T sets forth the cost sharing provisions applicable to taxable years beginning on or after January 5, 2009. Section 1.482-8 provides examples illustrating the application of the best method rule. Finally, § 1.482-9 provides rules for the determination of the true taxable income of controlled taxpayers in cases involving the performance of services ...

...

...

At issue was an interest free loan granted by “L…. Engenharia e Construções, S.A.” to a related party. The loan had been granted before the parties became related following an acquisition in 2007. The tax authorities had issued an assessment where the interest had been determined to 1.4% based on the interest rate that would later apply to the loan according to the agreement. An appeal was filed by “L…. Engenharia e Construções, S.A.” with the Administrative Court, where the assessment was later set aside. An appeal was then filed by the tax authorities with the Administrative Court of Appeal. Judgement of the Court The Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the administrative court, dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities and annulled the assessment. Excerpt “In this regard, it cannot be ignored that the contract entered into by the Claimant with the company Construtora do L…. SGPS, SA, on 21 September 2004, is not a true shareholder loan contract, as understood by the Tax Inspection Services (see points 1 to 3 and 6 of the list of proven facts). This is because that type of contract presupposes that it is the partner who lends the company money or another fungible item, the latter being obliged to return it another of the same type and quality, and not the reverse, under the terms of Article 243(1) of the Commercial Companies Code (CSC) (see points 1 to 3 and 6 of the list of proven facts). Therefore, as the company Construtora do L…. SGPS, SA, holder of 94.72% of the share capital of the Disputant Company on 31 December 2007, and as the Disputant Company did not hold any shareholding in that company until that date, it follows that the Disputant Company could not make shareholder loans to the said company, under penalty of breach of the said legal provision (see points 1 to 3 and 42 of the list of proven facts). Therefore, it is necessary to qualify both contracts at issue in the present proceedings as loan contracts, whose regime is legally foreseen in Articles 1142 and following of the Civil Code (see points 1 to 6 and 42 of the list of proven facts). In addition, these are onerous loan agreements, since they provide not only for the repayment of the capital lent, but also for the payment of interest to the Impugner, increased by a percentage of 1.5% (see points 1 to 3, 6 and 7 of the list of proven facts). “The correction of transfer prices cannot be based solely on the appeal to the general principle that a loan between related entities should bear interest, but rather involves demonstrating that transactions of the same or similar nature performed between independent entities in similar circumstances involve the requirement of interest, and it is not arguable in the case law of the Supreme Administrative Court that the determination of arm’s length conditions is a burden that the law places on the Tax Administration. As stated in the doctrinal summary of the Supreme Administrative Court ruling of 11/10/2021, in case no. 01209/11.7BELRS, “The AT has the burden of proving the existence of special relations, as well as the terms under which operations of the same nature normally take place between independent persons and under identical circumstances. This means that the correction referred to in Article 58 of the CIRC cannot, therefore, be based on indications or presumptions, and the AT is obliged to prove the abovementioned legal requirements in order to be able to correct the taxpayer’s taxable income under this regime”. Having decided in this line, the sentence did not incur in the pointed errors of judgment, deserving to be fully confirmed.” Click here for English translation. Click here for other translation ...

Promgas s.p.a. is 50% owned by the Italian company Eni s.p.a. and 50% owned by the Russian company Gazprom Export. It deals with the purchase and sale of natural gas of Russian origin destined for the Italian market. It sells the gas to a single Italian entity not belonging to the group, Edison spa, on the basis of a contract signed on 24 January 2000. In essence, Promgas s.p.a. performes intermediary function between the Russian company, Gazprom Export (exporter of the gas), and the Italian company, Edison s.p.a. (final purchaser of the gas). Following an audit for FY 2005/06, the tax authorities – based on the Transaction Net Margin Method – held that the operating margin obtained by Promgas s.p.a. (0.23% in 2025 and 0.06% in 2006) were not in line with the results that the company could have achieved at arm’s length. Applying an operating margin of l.39% resulted in a arm’s length profit of €4,227,438.07, for the year 2005, which was €3,426.803.00 higher than the profit declared by the company. Promgas s.p.a. appealed against the notice of assessment, which was upheld by the Provincial Tax Commission of Milan, with sentence no. 356/44/11, notified on 23/12/2011. The tax authorities then filed an appeal with the Regional Tax Commission of Lombardy which upheld the the tax authorities main appeal and rejected the company’s cross appeal. Promgas s.p.a. then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court remanded the cast to the Regional Tax Commission of Lombardy Excerpts “…. 8.1. The failure to examine the facts put forward by the taxpayer company to oppose the set of comparables identified by the Revenue Agency resulted in a defect in the overall reasoning of the contested judgment, as denounced by the appellant company in its fifth and sixth grounds of complaint. 8.2. As is clear from the criteria indicated in the OECD Guidelines referred to above, in order for the application of the TNMM to be reliable, it is necessary to conduct an analysis of comparability that passes through the two moments of the choice of the tested party and the identification of the comparable companies, an identification that, under free market conditions (arm’s length principle), presupposes a “comparison” (internal or external) between the tested party and comparable companies that satisfies the five factors of comparability indicated by the OECD criteria (characteristics of goods and services functional analysis; contractual terms underlying the intra-group transaction; business strategies; economic conditions). It is through such a comparison that the factors that may significantly influence the net profit indicators (see paragraph 7.9 below) are identified on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case. 8.3. Indeed, the reliability of such a method, according to the prevailing practice and interpretation, must pass through the following steps – selection of the tested party for the analysis; – determination of the financial results relating to the controlled transactions – selection of the investigation period; – identification of comparable companies; – accounting adjustments to the financial statements of the tested party and differences in accounting practices, provided that such adjustments are appropriate and possible; – assessment of whether adjustments are appropriate or necessary to take account of differences between the tested party and the identified comparable companies in terms of risks assumed or functions performed; – selection of a reliable profitability profit level indicator (so-called Profit Leverage/ Indicator, or PLI). 8.4. The CTR’s failure to verify the circumstances alleged by the taxpayer, resulted, in essence, in the pretermission of the comparability analysis for the selection of the TNMM applied to the case, and thus, of the procedure for the identification of comparable transactions and the use of relevant information to ensure the reliability of the analysis and the compliance of the PLI, or PLI, with the principle of free competition, or rather, the reliability of the selected TNMM. 9. The seventh ground of appeal – alleging breach of Article 6(1) of Legislative Decree 18/12/1997, no. The seventh ground of appeal – which alleges infringement of Article 6(1) of Legislative Decree No 472 of 18 December 1997, on the ground that the Regional Tax Commission held that the financial penalties applied by the Tax Office were lawful, erroneously excluding the existence of a ground of non-punishability, without specifically verifying the percentage of discrepancy between the amount declared by the company (0.23%) and the amount assessed by the Administration (1.39%) – is considered to be absorbed by the acceptance of the fifth and sixth grounds of appeal. 10. In conclusion, the appeal must be upheld limited to the fifth and sixth grounds of appeal, with absorption of the seventh and dismissal of the remainder. The judgement must be set aside in relation to the upheld grounds, with a reference back to the CTR, in a different composition, for a new examination of the merits of the dispute from the point of view of the standards of comparability relating to the method chosen and the penalty profile also in the light of the more favourable ius superveniens.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

The Administrative Court found that a voluntary redemption of shares was not a controlled transaction covered by arm’s length provisions. A redemption is a corporation’s repurchase of all or a portion of the shares held by a shareholder at an amount not in excess of the amount stated in the articles or calculated according to a formula stated in the articles. A redemption of shares can only take place between a company and its shareholders. Hence, terms and pricing of the transaction cannot be determined based on unrelated transactions. The purpose of the redemption of shares is not to modify the amount of income achieved by the related parties by applying a non-arm’s length price. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

By judgment of 13 March 2020, the Provincial Administrative Court upheld the complaint filed by K.O. and revoked a decision issued by the tax authorities on the determination of the amount of the tax liability resulting from a transfer of shares between K.O. and a related party in 2016. An appeal was filed by the tax authorities with the Supreme Administrative Court in which the authorities stated that Provincial Administrative Court incorrectly had concluded that the nominal value of shares taken up by a taxpayer is not subject to market mechanisms and, therefore, the authority should not question the revenue thus generated. According to the tax authorities the taxpayer effected a transaction with a related entity of which it was the owner and determined without justification a contribution in-kind disproportionately high in relation to the shares acquired in the related entity, while the authority, taking these circumstances into account, determined a comparable uncontrolled price that the taxpayer would have obtained in exchange for the transfer of shares in I. to an unrelated entity, verifying the proportion of the distribution of the value of the non-cash contribution in line with the purpose and function of the transfer pricing provisions Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The court dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities and upheld the decision of the Administrative Court. Excerpts “The taxable income in the case of taking up shares in a company in exchange for a contribution in kind in 2016 was the nominal value of such shares and not their market value, determined in any way. The court of first instance rightly emphasises that the nominal value cannot be verified. This view is also confirmed by the established judicature of the Supreme Administrative Court, which may be exemplified by the judgments of this Court: of 19 April 2006, ref. no. II FSK 558/05; of 8 December 2009, ref. no. II FSK 1149/08; of 22 May 2013, ref. no. II FSK 1838/11, or the judgments quoted above concerning the issue of application of provisions on transfer prices, which is already disputed in the case.” … “If a share is taken up at a price higher than its nominal value, the surplus of the share subscription price over its nominal value is transferred to the supplementary capital. There is no doubt that in a limited-liability company reserve capital may also be created (this follows from the wording of Article 233 § 1), but the wording of Article 154 § 3 determines that at the moment of covering the share the agio must be transferred to the reserve capital, and only secondarily may it be transferred (pursuant to a separate resolution of the shareholders’ meeting) to the reserve capital in whole or in part. The share premium is permissible irrespective of whether the shares are covered by a contribution in kind or by a cash contribution. There are no legal and accounting counter-indications that a certain part of the value of the in-kind contribution made to the company should be allocated not to the share capital, but to the supplementary or reserve capital.” … “The Supreme Administrative Court sitting in judgment does not share the view expressed in the appealed judgment that in the absence of legal definitions of transfer pricing concepts, one should refer to colloquial language. The institution of transfer pricing is primarily applicable to cross-border relations. It is subject to international regulations, its application results in the necessity of adjusting income of each party to the transaction, belonging to different tax jurisdictions. Reference in previous case-law, including in the judgment under appeal, to the dictionary meaning of the Polish language and equating the concept of a ‘transaction’ with an ‘agreement’ is unsupported by the interpretation of the transfer pricing provisions. That institution applies mainly to cross-border transactions within multinational enterprises. It is permissible to refer to the meaning of colloquial language in the course of an interpretation, but only if the meaning of the words used by the legislator cannot be deduced either from legal language or from legalese. In addition, given the international character of transfer pricing, the terms related to it should be understood universally.” “The parity (proportion) of the distribution of the value of the in-kind contribution to the company’s capitals is therefore neither a financial result nor a financial indicator within the meaning of the above concepts.” … “In summary, in the opinion of the Supreme Administrative Court, the subject of transactions between related parties covered by transfer pricing in 2016 could be: tangible and intangible goods, tangible and intangible services (including financial services), joint ventures, restructuring activities as described in Chapter 5a of the Regulation of the Minister of Finance of 2009. The division of the in-kind contribution made by a natural person into the capital of the company did not constitute the subject of the transaction within the meaning of the transfer pricing regulations.” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

A. Sp. z o.o. was established to carry out an investment project consisting in construction of a shopping center. In order to raise funds, the company concluded a loan agreement. The loan agreement was guaranteed by shareholders and other related parties. By virtue of the guarantees, the guarantors became solitarily liable for the Applicant’s obligations. The guarantees were granted free of charge. A. Sp. z o.o. was not obliged to pay any remuneration or provide any other mutual benefit to the guarantors. In connection with the above description, the following questions were asked: (1) Will A. Sp. z o.o. be obliged to prepare transfer pricing documentation in connection with the gratuitous service received, and if so, both for the year in which the surety is granted to the Applicant or also for subsequent tax years during the term of the security? (2) Will A. Sp. z o.o. be obliged to disclose the event related to the free-of-charge consideration received in a simplified CIT/TP report, both for the year in which the guarantee is granted and for subsequent tax years during which the guarantee is in effect. In A. Sp. z o.o.’s opinion, the company was not obliged to prepare transfer pricing documentation in connection with the gratuitous service received. And if the tax authority’s decision was contrary to the Company’s position, documentation should be prepared only for the tax year in which the guarantees was entered. The tax authorities disagreed with the company, and a complaint was filed by A. Sp. Z o.o. with the Administrative Court. In March 2019 the Administrative Court dismissed the complaint of A. Sp. z o.o. and sided with the tax authorities. An appeal was then filed by the company with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Administrative Court. Guidance on the understanding of the notion of “transaction”, was published by Polish Ministry of Finance in December 2021. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

Article 260-8 of the Colombian Tax Statute established which taxpayers were obliged to file Transfer pricing documentation. The rule established two requirements for income taxpayers to be obliged to file DIIPT in the year 2010, the first is to have obtained a gross equity on 31 December of the taxable period of 100.100,000 UVT ($2,455,500,000) or gross income of 61,000 UVT ($1,497,855,000), and the second is to have carried out operations with economic associates or related parties domiciled abroad. In the present case, a Colombian branch of Petroleum Exploration International S.A presented a total gross income of $18,496,716,000 in the income tax return for 2010, and therefore complied with the first requirement. As for the second requirement, it is noted that according to the certificate of existence and legal representation of Colombian branch, it is a branch of the company Petroleum Exploration International S.A. whose principal place of business is Panama. (…) In the accounting inspection report of 2 April 2013, the company’s accountant stated that Ecopetrol paid directly for the oil services provided by the plaintiff to its parent company, which then made the payment to Forum Absolute Return Fund LTD abroad. Consequently, it is evident that there were transactions between the branch and its related company abroad, when the parent company was paid for services provided by the company in Colombia. The aforementioned evidence shows that the company that owned the drill was Petroleum Exploration Internacional S.A. of Panama, which, as recorded in the accounts, was leased by the Colombian branch to provide services in Colombia, but part of the payment went to the company Forum Absolute Return Fund LTD. Hence, there were transactions between the branch and its parent company during the taxable period 2010, so it was obliged to present transfer pricing documentation in the aforementioned period. (…) It is clarified that the acts being challenged do not disregard the principle of the prevalence of substantive law over formal law, as it was not appropriate to declare the drill as an asset of the company, since, as stated by the plaintiff in the appeal, the asset was acquired by its parent company, and therefore the branch could not depreciate an asset that did not belong to it. Moreover, the date of importation of the drill does not affect the fact that transactions had taken place between the branch and its parent company in 2010. (…) According to the above, the branch was obliged to file transfer pricing documentation in 2010 as it exceeded the gross income ceiling, and had carried out operations with its parent company abroad. FORMAL SOURCE: LAW 1437 OF 2011 (CPACA) – ARTICLE 188 / LAW 1564 OF 2012 (GENERAL CODE OF THE PROCESS) – ARTICLE 365 NUMERAL 8 Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

The Tax Authority had made a transfer pricing adjustment for FY 2007 in the amount of €262,500.00 arising from the provision of a guarantee for payment granted under a credit agreement between a bank and its subsidiary. The adjustment had been determined using a CUP method where the pricing of the controlled transaction had been compared to the pricing of uncontrolled bank guarantees. The Court of first instance held that “it cannot be concluded that the transactions at issue here are comparable on the basis of the criterion adopted by the Tax Authorities referred to above. In fact, although the guarantee and the independent bank guarantee may share common features, the way in which the risk falls on the guarantor and on the guarantor of the independent bank guarantee potentially generates differences that significantly affect their comparability.” An appeal was filed by the tax authorities. Decision of Supreme Administrative Court The Court dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities. In accordance with article 58 of the CIRC (wording at the time of the facts), the AT could make the corrections that are necessary for the determination of the taxable profit whenever, by virtue of special relations between the taxpayer and another person, subject or not subject to IRC, different conditions have been established to those that would normally be agreed upon between independent persons, leading to the profit ascertained on the basis of accounting being different from that which would be ascertained in the absence of such relations. The Tax Authority has the burden of proving the existence of those special relations, as well as the terms under which operations of the same nature normally take place between independent persons and under identical circumstances, and the act must be annulled if that proof is not provided, which means that the correction referred to in Article 58 of the CIRC cannot therefore be based on indications or presumptions, the AT having to prove the abovementioned legal requirements in order to be able to correct the taxpayer’s taxable amount under that regime. The provision of a guarantee by the Defendant constitutes a situation that has no equivalent between independent entities, since this type of provision is proper of related entities and to that extent there is no term of comparison between the situation of a guarantee provided by a bank and the guarantee provided by the dominant company in favour of its subsidiary and as follows from the provisions of article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Commercial Companies Code, the provision of real or personal guarantees for the debts of other entities is, as a general rule, considered to be contrary to the pursuit of the company’s purpose (profit), and operations relating to the provision of (remunerated) guarantees may only be carried out by credit institutions and financial companies. Bearing in mind the fact that the bank guarantee has its own characteristics that differentiate it from the guarantee, as profusely explained in the judgment appealed against, leads us to conclude that the conditions for the provision of a bank guarantee by a banking institution cannot serve as a model of comparison for the purpose of determining the remuneration to be fixed for the guarantee provided by the Appellant since the two transactions are not sufficiently comparable, in accordance with the provisions of Article 4(3) of Order in Council No 1446-C/2001, particularly since part of the benefits which the defendant expects to gain from the provision of the guarantee in favour of its subsidiary arise from its status as a shareholder, a situation which has no economic equivalent in the case of the provision of a bank guarantee by a bank. Furthermore, for a transaction to be considered comparable it must have economic characteristics similar to those of non-binding transactions. It therefore “it seems unquestionable that the assumption of a payment guarantee by the parent company (for the debts of a controlled company) does not alter, in a significant manner, the liability regime already applicable to it by virtue of the provisions of articles 501 and 491 of the Commercial Companies Code. In summary, in view of the reality of the situation in the case, the conclusion of the sentence appealed must be followed in the sense that, in view of what article 58, nos. 1 and 2, of the Corporate Income Tax Code and article 5 of Ministerial Order no. 1446-C/2001 establish as regards the liability regime of the company in question, the conclusion of the sentence appealed must be followed. no. 1446-C/2001 establish as to the factors to be assessed in order to ascertain the comparability of the transactions, we conclude that the Tax Authorities failed to demonstrate that, in the specific case, the provision of the guarantee by the Impugnant and the provision of autonomous bank guarantees whose expenses were borne by the Impugnant meet the conditions to be considered comparable, as they present relevant economic and financial characteristics that are sufficiently similar, and ensure a high degree of comparability, so as to correct the taxable amount through the transfer pricing regime provided for in article 58, no. 1, of the IRC Code. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

Ukrainian company “PJSP Gals-K” had been involved in various controlled transactions – complex technological drilling services; sale of crude oil; transfer of fixed assets etc. The tax authority found, that prices had not been determined in accordance with the arm’s length principle and issued a tax assessment. Gals-K disagreed and filed a complaint. The Administrative Court dismissed the tax assessment and this decision was later upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case to the court of first instance for a new hearing. The court considered that breaches of procedural and substantive law by both the Court of Appeal and the Court of First Instance have been committed, and the case should therefore be referred to the Court of First Instance for a new hearing. Excerpts “Thus, in order to properly resolve the dispute in this part, the courts must determine, on the basis of the relevant and admissible evidence, whether the oil sales by the plaintiff to the non-resident GFF AG (Swiss Confederation) are controlled transactions within the meaning of paragraph 39. 2.1 of Article 39.2 of Article 39 of the Code of Ukraine. In this case, when establishing the validity of the position on the extension of the provisions of Article 39 of the CP of Ukraine to other legal relationships, the courts should also assess the validity of the opinion of the State Traffic Department regarding the improper valuation by the caller of a controlled operation when using the method of “comparative uncontrolled price”. For example, in the SO No. 35/4, the price that was set at the auction (auction certificate No. A185-186 of 23 January 2014 for the sale of oil on the domestic market) was reversed as the price of the export of oil from GFF AG to Orlen Lietuva.” “According to the appellant’s position, the transfer of the tangible fixed assets by the managing directorate of SD No 35/4 in the name of all the parties to the contract to one of the parties (PJSC “Ukrnafta”) in the person of its structural division (NGVU “Chernihivnaftogaz”) cannot be considered a sale, since the goods were actually transferred to the entire legal entity of PJSC “Ukrnafta”. In connection with the above-mentioned circumstances, during the cassation examination of the case, the plaintiff also pointed to the absence of legislative grounds for considering such a transaction as controlled, and the mention of the latter in the Report on Controlled Transactions constitutes a mistake made by the relevant administrative department. In accordance with this position, the courts of the previous instances have found that the use of the “resale price” method was unjustified. The College of Judges considers that, in resolving the dispute between the parties in this part, the courts of the previous instances did not fully appreciate the parties’ arguments on the dispute, which resulted in an incorrect assessment of the circumstances of the case. It should be noted that the sub-clauses of clause 14.1.139 of Article 14.1 and clause 153.14.5 of Article 153.14 of the Ukrainian Civil Code provide that for the purposes of the disclosure the obligations of the parties to the joint venture under the Joint Venture Agreement are specific civil law contracts. At the same time, the accounting treatment of transactions involving the transfer/sale of tangible goods has been subject to respect and legal scrutiny by the courts. In order to properly resolve the dispute in this part, the following should have been addressed: who and for what money the goods were delivered; to whom (PJSC “Ukrznafta” as a separate legal entity or PJSC “Ukrznafta” as a member of the Agreement No. 35/4) and on what legal basis the goods were exchanged/sold; how the relevant transaction was recorded in the accounting records and whether such recording corresponds to the primary documents that were created in connection with the transfer/sale of the goods.” “The Collegium of Judges notes that, in addition to the above-mentioned deficiencies in the absence of primary documents and accounting documents, which were created for the results of the business transactions, the documentation from the transfer pricing, which was provided to the audit, is also absent (volume 1, page 30). The above makes it impossible to establish officially the conditions of the case as to the method used by the caller, the arguments of the latter in the absence of the conditions for the inclusion of the joint operation in the controlled order with the self-inclusion of the operations of PJSC “Ukrnafta” in the Report for 2014 with the inclusion of the methods 303 “costs plus” and 305 “revenue allocation”, whereas in the letter No 1855/10 dated 22 March 2017 the caller informed the State Tax Administration about the use of only the 303 “cost plus” method.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

In 2013 “Related Party B.V” entered into an agreement with “X BV” for the provision of transportation- and support services. The Dutch tax authority suspected that the parties were affiliated within the meaning of Section 8b of the Corporate Income Tax Act 1969. Decision of Court The Court decided in favor of the tax authority. Based on the documents in the case, the tax authority rightly suspected that there was an affiliation within the meaning of Section 8b of the Corporate Income Tax Act. The tax authority was therefore entitled to reasonably issue information decisions for the Vpb for 2013 to 2016 inclusive. Nemo Tenetur Principle – self incrimination “Related Party B.V” argued that it’s right not to incriminate itself had been violated because the information decision(s) had been issued to examine the possibility of imposing a fine. In this regard, the court observed that pursuant to the law a taxpayer is obliged to provide the Inspector with all data and information that may be relevant to his taxation and that it is ultimately up to the court, which decides on the fine or punishment, to ensure that a taxpayer can effectively exercise his right not to cooperate in self-incrimination. Now that in the present proceedings no tax fine has been imposed yet, the appeal to the nemo tenetur principle does not succeed. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

A request for an interpretation was submitted by a company in regards to financial transactions (loans and guarantees) with related parties. The requested interpretation was relevant in determining the amount of the controlled transactions and on that basis whether the taxpayer was required to prepare TP documentation or not. The company held that in determining the value of a loan transaction, only the value of interest should be taken into account. The tax authorities held that both the amount of interest and the amount of capital were to be included in amount of the transaction. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Court decided in favour of the tax authorities. Applying a linguistic interpretation, the court found no support for excluding the capital part of a loan transaction from the amount of the transaction. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

A significant volume of global trade consists of international transfers of goods and services, capital and intangibles within MNE groups and thus between related parties. Transactions between related parties are referred to as “controlled” transactions, as distinct from “uncontrolled” transactions between independent companies. The forces that regulate pricing of transactions between independent parties are known as “marked forces”. Independent parties can be assumed to operate in their own self-interest (“on an arm’s length basis”) in negotiating terms and conditions for transactions. Put in simple terms an independent seller would want to sell at the highest price and an independent buyer would want to buy at the lowest price – and the price agreed between the two independent parties would be determined in an equilibrium of these two opposite forces. Absent regulation, pricing of controlled transactions within MNE Groups would be determined by forces that differs from those that govern pricing between independent parties – e.g. the overall group profit and taxation. This would result in (1) obstructions to world trade as competition between MNE groups and local businesses would not be at equal footing, and (2) erosion of taxing right in souvereign contries due to MNEs reallocating  profits and tax bases in group companies operating in high tax counties to low tax countries.  For these reasons regulation is needed. “Transfer pricing” is the general term used for regulation of pricing and terms in controlled transactions. In most countries transfer pricing is governed by the Arm’s length principle. Transfer pricing regulations would allow for an adjustment  in the example above. The price of 90 set in the controlled transaction between related parties would be reduced to 80 based on the price agreed between independent parties under comparable circumstances. The authoritative statement of the arm’s length principle is found in paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the OECD Model Tax Convention, which forms the basis of bilateral tax treaties involving OECD member countries and an increasing number of non-member countries and on which most countries internal regulations are based. Article 9 provides: [Where] conditions are made or imposed between the two [associated] enterprises in their commercial or financial relations which differ from those which would be made between independent enterprises, then any profits which would, but for those conditions, have accrued to one of the enterprises, but, by reason of those conditions, have not so accrued, may be included in the profits of that enterprise and taxed accordingly. By seeking to adjust profits in MNEs by reference to the conditions which would have obtained between independent enterprises in comparable transactions and comparable circumstances, the arm’s length principle follows the approach of treating the members of an MNE group as if they were operating as separate entities rather than as inseparable parts of a single unified group. Transfer pricing does not necessarily involve tax avoidance, as the need to set such prices is a normal aspect of how MNEs must operate. Where the pricing does not accord with internationally applicable norms or with the arm’s length principle under domestic law, the tax administration may consider this to be “mis-pricing”, “incorrect pricing”, “unjustified pricing” or non-arm’s length pricing, and issues of tax avoidance and evasion may potentially arise ...

A. Sp. z o.o. was established to carry out an investment project consisting in construction of a shopping center. In order to raise funds, the company concluded a loan agreement. The loan agreement was guaranteed by shareholders and other related parties. By virtue of the guarantees, the guarantors became solitarily liable for the Applicant’s obligations. The guarantees were granted free of charge. A. Sp. z o.o. was not obliged to pay any remuneration or provide any other mutual benefit to the guarantors. In connection with the above description, the following questions were asked: (1) Will A. Sp. z o.o. be obliged to prepare transfer pricing documentation in connection with the gratuitous service received, and if so, both for the year in which the surety is granted to the Applicant or also for subsequent tax years during the term of the security? (2) Will A. Sp. z o.o. be obliged to disclose the event related to the free-of-charge consideration received in a simplified CIT/TP report, both for the year in which the guarantee is granted and for subsequent tax years during which the guarantee is in effect. In A. Sp. z o.o.’s opinion, the company was not obliged to prepare transfer pricing documentation in connection with the gratuitous service received. And if the tax authority’s decision was contrary to the Company’s position, documentation should be prepared only for the tax year in which the guarantees was entered. The tax authorities disagreed with the company, and a complaint was filed by A. Sp. Z o.o. with the Administrative Court. Judgement of the Administrative Court The court dismsissed the appeal of A. Sp. z o.o. and sided with the tax authorities. Excerpt “The essence of the dispute in this respect boils down to the understanding of the notion of transaction used in this provision to define the actions the performance of which is to result in the necessity to draw up tax documentation. The provisions of ustawa p.d.o.p. do not contain a legal definition of this notion, therefore, the basis for interpretation of its meaning must be a colloquial understanding of the word transaction. However, basing such an interpretation solely on lexical definitions is doomed to failure because both the interpreter himself, as well as the applicant, basing themselves on linguistic definitions contained in dictionaries, came to completely different conclusions from the point of view of interpretation. One of them concluded that a transaction is a legal act concluded in connection with a party’s business activity in the performance of which at least one payment is made (based on the Internet Dictionary of the Polish Language http://sjp.pl), while the applicant, relying on another dictionary https://sjp.pwn.pl), argued that the word transaction covers only an agreement for the purchase and sale of goods and services. Therefore, resolving the merits of the case based solely on dictionary concepts does not give sufficiently satisfactory results. n such a situation one should refer to a purposeful interpretation, referring to the reasons for introducing this regulation, as well as to the goal the legislator intended to achieve through its introduction. In this respect, it should be pointed out that the provisions on the obligation to prepare tax documentation in the case of civil law transactions between related entities were introduced in order to ensure transparency of such activities, in particular to ensure that such activities are conducted on market principles. The purpose of introducing such a regulation convinces the court to accept as correct a broad definition of the word transaction. Such a definition ensures transparency of actions by related entities. There are no grounds for assuming that the legislator intended to achieve this only with respect to purchase and sale agreements, leaving the entire wide range of possible legal actions between related entities outside these regulations. Such an understanding of this provision is also an implementation of the guarantee function of the tax law, allowing related entities to obtain adequate protection in the event of disclosure of their actions. Therefore, in the court’s opinion, the interpreting authority did not violate the law by stating that the applicant’s position in this respect, in which it assumes that the notion of transaction means only and exclusively sale and purchase agreements, is incorrect. In this respect, the court of first instance fully agrees with the view of the Supreme Administrative Court expressed in the judgment of 8 March 2016 in case II FSK 4000/13, which stated that on the grounds of Article 9a(1) and (2) of the Act, the term “transaction” is synonymous with the term “agreement”. (ONSAiWSA 2017/3/52). In the same judgment, this Court considered as transactions within the meaning of Article 9a(1) of the P.C.P. making a contribution-in-kind to a capital company in the form of shares or stocks, the purchase (acquisition) of shares or taking up shares in increased share capital in exchange for a cash contribution. Cash-pooling agreements were also recognised as agreements exhausting the notion of transaction indicated in Article 9(1) of the APS (e.g. judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 8 January 2019 II FSK 121/17) or taking up by a bank in exchange for a cash contribution of shares issued upon the establishment of a mortgage bank and subsequent increases in the share capital of a mortgage bank (judgment of the WSA in Gliwice of 25 April 2018 I SA/Gl 314/18). Thus, the court jurisprudence in this respect adopts a broad understanding of the notion of transaction, not limiting it only to a sale-purchase agreement. Taking into account all the elements indicated above, the court held that the authority did not infringe the law by assuming that the notion of transaction referred to in Article 9a(1) of the A.P.C. also includes a legal transaction such as the one described in the application, which is subject to the granting of a surety free of charge to the applicant under a loan agreement. The interpreter’s position does not violate the law either, to the extent in which he stated that the obligation to prepare tax ...

Maderas Anchile exported wood chips to a Japanese corporation, Itochu, which indirectly owned 9.8499% of the shares in Maderas Anchile through another company, Forestal Anchile. At issue was whether these transactions between Maderas Anchile and Itochu were controlled. Based on the wording of the transfer pricing provisions in force at the time (Article 38 of the LIR), the tax authorities concluded that the transactions were controlled, and had issued a transfer pricing adjustment based on this assumption. >Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court applied a restrictive interpretation of the rule in article 38 of the LIR and decided in favour of Maderas Anchile. Excerpts “Ninth: That with regard to the validity of assessment No. 35, issued to Daio Paper Corporation, it is consequential to those affecting Maderas Anchile, and therefore, since the existence of transfer prices lower than those that would be set between independent companies has not been established, there are no tax differences in favour of the Treasury or sums that could be considered withdrawn by Daio Paper, in accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of the Income Tax Law. Tenth: That the judgment of appeal added that the hypotheses of “relationship” are not limited or restricted by the assumptions of relationship contained in Laws Nos. 18.045 and 18.046, because it is legally improper for the Internal Revenue Service to limit or restrict the express will of the legislator. In any case, Circular No. 3 of the Internal Revenue Service of 6 January 1998, which gives instructions on the amendments introduced to article 38 of the Income Tax Law by Law No. 19.506, does not indicate that this was the intention of the administration. But what is missing in this case is the basic assumption of “relationship”, which is the control exercised by one company over the other and which ultimately influences the determination of transfer prices. Eleventh: As can be seen, the point on which the liquidations are based arises from the text of article 38, third paragraph, of the Income Tax Law, modified by Law No. 19.506, of 30 July 1997, which at the time the audited operations took place, was as follows: “…. When the prices charged by the agency or branch to its parent company or to another agency or related company of the parent company are not in line with the values charged for similar operations between independent companies, the Regional Directorate may challenge them, taking as a reference basis for such prices a reasonable profitability for the characteristics of the operation, or the production costs plus a reasonable profit margin…”. Consequently, it was necessary to elucidate whether there was a “relationship” between the companies that carried out the audited and liquidated acts, for which reason it was reasoned about the elements provided by the precept to define whether there were operations carried out by related entities and, if so, whether the values charged by Maderas Anchile to Itochu Corporation were equivalent to those that in similar operations would be agreed between independent companies. Twelfth: That in the preceding grounds it has been described how the judges were convinced that these were not related companies, so that the challenge of the Internal Revenue Service was not founded, in fact and in law, because the assumptions for the application of article 38 of the Income Tax Law were not met. Thirteenth: That without prejudice to this, although unnecessary, the judgement also declared that the price was not influenced by the alleged relationship between the contracting companies, since the price stipulated in the audited operations corresponded to those that could be legitimately fixed by independent companies, a conclusion that arose from the inaccuracies of the Service, reflected in the liquidations, when assessing the transfer price. Fourteenth: That in the situation described above, it is not possible to see how the infringements of the rules that the appeal points out could occur, since neither the “relationship” nor the fixing of a transfer price lower than that of the same market developed by independent companies has been declared, which arose from the application of the rule of article 132, paragraph 14 of the Tax Code, a precept that has not been denounced as having been transgressed. Fifteenth: That in this way, the factual conclusions reached by the first instance judge, which the second instance judges adopted, appear to be in accordance with the merits of the proceedings and cannot be altered in cassation if it has not been demonstrated that the laws regulating evidence have been violated in order to establish the facts that were decisive to accept the claims in the case.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

This case is about the tax authorities power to determine a taxable income according to section 136 of the Australian Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) which provides: “Where any business carried on in Australia – (a) is controlled principally by non-residents; (b) is carried on by a company a majority of the shares in which is held by or on behalf of non-residents; or (c) is carried on by a company which holds or on behalf of which other persons hold a majority of the shares in a non-resident company – and it appears to the Commissioner that the business produces either no taxable income or less than the amount of taxable income which might be expected to arise from that business, the person carrying on the business in Australia shall, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, be liable to pay income tax on a taxable income of such amount of the total receipts (whether cash or credit) of the business as the Commissioner determines. “...However, it is sufficient to state that the taxpayer has not discharged the onus of proving that its business was not principally controlled by non-residents” ...