Following a tax audit the tax authority conducted a on-site inspection of PJSC Odesa Port Plant on the completeness of tax calculation in respect of controlled transactions on the export of mineral fertilisers to non-resident companies Ameropa AG (Switzerland), “Koch Fertilizer Trading SARL (Switzerland), Nitora Commodities (Malta) Ltd (Malta), Nitora Commodities AG (Switzerland), Trammo AG (Switzerland), Trammo DMCC (United Arab Emirates), NF Trading AG (Switzerland) for FY 2013 and 2014, as well as business transactions on import of natural gas in gaseous form from a non-resident company Ostchem Holding Limited (Republic of Cyprus) for FY 2013. Based on the results of the inspection, an assessment of additional taxable income was issued. The assessment was based on the following considerations of the tax authority: – it is impossible to use the “net profit” method to confirm the compliance of prices in PJSC Odesa Port Plant’s controlled transactions for the export of mineral fertilisers in 2013 and 2014, since the “comparable uncontrolled price” method should have been used to determine the price in the said controlled transactions. The position of the tax authority is based on the fact that the application of the “net profit” method for determining the price does not allow to objectively determine the relevance of the price of the controlled transaction due to the lack of consideration of the impact of global trends in the nitrogen fertiliser market; information on derivative data available in officially recognised sources of information may be considered sufficient to determine the market price range (range of exchange prices) and calculate the level of arm’s length prices; in the presence of a market price range (range of exchange prices), – PJSC Odesa Port Plant’s transactions with Ostchem Holding Limited for the purchase of natural gas are controlled and PJSC Odesa Port Plant used the method of comparable uncontrolled price in determining the price in controlled transactions for the import of natural gas. However, PJSC Odesa Port Plant is a related party of PJSC Sumykhimprom, therefore, comparing the price in the controlled transaction with the prices in transactions that are also recognised as controlled. – it is not possible to use the “comparable uncontrolled price” method and it is appropriate to use the “net profit” method for natural gas import transactions, since no official source of information contains information on comparable uncontrolled transactions; it is not possible to adjust for the price of natural gas transportation from the European hub to the territory of Ukraine to ensure the proper level of comparability of the price in controlled transactions, and therefore the tax authority to find comparable transactions to apply the “net profit” method. It was found that the contract holder, Ostchem Holding Limited, did not perform any functions that could have influenced the increase in the sale price of natural gas. In the course of the audit, the Amadeus database was used to select independent companies that are comparable to Ostchem Holding Limited in terms of activities within the controlled natural gas import transaction. The sample included, in the tax authority’s opinion, independent companies with comparable activities and a similar functional profile to Ostchem Holding Limited. As a result of the search for comparable companies, 3 companies were selected, which, in the tax authority’s opinion, are fully comparable to Ostchem Holding Limited with key financial indicators for 2013. Based on the results of the analysis of the financial indicators of the comparable companies and the calculation of the range of profitability indicators, the tax authority found that the minimum value of the net profitability range for the comparable year 2013 was 0.04%, and the maximum value of the net profitability range was 1.51%. Thus, the net profitability of the controlled transaction with Ostchem Holding Limited exceeds the maximum value of the market range of net profitability of comparable companies by 30.34%. PJSC Odesa Port Plant disagreed with the tax assessment and filed an appeal. The district court upheld the appeal and dismissed the tax assessment. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the District Court and ruled in favour of PJSC Odesa Port Plant. The tax authority then appealed to the Supreme Court, which sent the case back to the Court of Appeal, which in the new trail upheld the tax authority’s assessment. This decision was then appealed to the Supreme Court – again – because, according to PJSC Odesa Port Plant, the Court of Appeal did not follow the instructions and conclusions of the Supreme Court in the course of the new procedure. Judgement of the Court The Supreme Court found that the violations of procedural and substantive law had been committed by the courts of first instance and appeal, and the failure to take into account the relevant correct conclusions of the Supreme Court, give grounds for sending the case for a new trial. In the new trail, it is necessary to take into account the above, to comprehensively and fully clarify all the factual circumstances of the case, verifying them with appropriate and admissible evidence, and to make a reasoned and lawful court decision with appropriate legal justification in terms of accepting or rejecting the arguments of the parties to the case. Excerpt in English “Subparagraphs 39.2.2.8 – 39.2.2.9 of paragraph 39.2.2 of Article 39.2.2 of the TC of Ukraine stipulate that, when determining the comparability of commercial and/or financial terms of comparable transactions with the terms of the controlled transaction, the characteristics of the markets for goods (works, services) where such transactions are conducted are analysed. At the same time, differences in the characteristics of such markets should not significantly affect the commercial and/or financial terms of the transactions conducted there, or such differences should be taken into account when making the appropriate adjustment. In determining the comparability of the characteristics of markets for goods (works, services), the following factors are taken into account: geographical location of markets and their volumes; the presence of competition in the markets, the relative competitiveness of sellers and buyers in the market; the ...

An Ukrainian company, Slobozhanshchyna Agro, paid dividends to a Cypriot company, Unigrain Holding Limited, which held 25% of the shares in Slobozhanshchyna Agro. Withholding tax on the dividend paid was declared by Slobozhanshchyna Agro at a reduced rate of 5 % in accordance with Art. 10(2)(a) of the Ukraine-Cyprus Double Tax Treaty (see the relevant article below). Following an audit, the tax authorities concluded that the conditions for the application of the reduced rate of 5% under Art. 10(2)(a) were not met. Accordingly, Slobozhanshchyna Agro should have applied a withholding tax rate of 10% under Art. 10(2)(b) of the Tax Treaty. Slobozhanshchyna Agro disagreed with this conclusion and appealed to the Administrative Court. In December 2022, the Administrative Court ruled in favour of the tax authorities. According to the court, entitlement to the benefits under Art. 10(2)(a) of the Ukraine-Cyprus Double Tax Treaty was subject to the condition that the invested amount of not less than EUR 100,000.00 had been received by the Ukrainian taxpayer. The Cypriot company had purchased its shares in Slobozhanshchyna Agro from another Cypriot company for USD 2,600,000.00 and this amount was received by the non-resident. The conditions for the application of Art. 10(2)(a) of the Ukraine-Cyprus Tax Treaty were not met. In May 2023, the Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Administrative Court. Slobozhanshchyna Agro appealed to the Supreme Court of Ukraine. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Administrative Court and Administrative Court of Appeal and ruled in favor of Slobozhanshchyna Agro. Excerpts (in English) “…A literal interpretation of the content of this provision of the Convention indicates that the actual owner of the dividends (a company that is not a partnership) must invest in the acquisition (i.e. purchase) of shares or other rights of the company in the equivalent of at least EUR 100,000. Article 10(2)(a) of the Convention does not contain a provision stating that the investment must be made in the company by way of a contribution in the form of funds or property to its charter capital.” “…In order for a taxpayer to apply the reduced corporate income tax rate of 5% of the amount of dividends paid, as provided for in subparagraph “a” of paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention between the Government of Ukraine and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income dated 8 December 2012, a combination of two conditions must be met. The beneficial owner of dividends – a company that is not a partnership – must: (1) directly own at least 20 per cent of the capital of the company paying the dividends and (2) invest in the acquisition of shares or other rights in the company in the equivalent of at least EUR 100,000. For the purposes of this rule, an investment includes the acquisition of corporate rights of a company in exchange for funds or property in the equivalent of at least EUR 100,000. At the same time, whether the charter capital of the company whose corporate rights were acquired was increased by the said amount does not affect the applicability of this rule”. Cyprus – Ukraine Double Tax Treaty Dividends (Article 10) Dividends paid by a company which is a resident of a contracting state to a resident of the other contracting state may taxed in that other state. However, such dividends may also be taxed in the state of which the company paying the dividends is a resident and according to the laws of that state, but if the beneficial owner of the dividends is a resident of the other state, the tax so charged shall not exceed: a. 5% of the gross amount of the dividends if the beneficial owner holds at least 20% of the capital of the company paying the dividends or has invested in the acquisition of shares or other rights of the company equivalent of at least €100.000 b. 15% of the gross amount of the dividends in all other cases. New Protocol (applicable from 1 January 2020) ... a. 5% of the gross amount of the dividends if the beneficial owner holds at least 20% of the capital of the company paying the dividends AND has invested in the acquisition of shares or other rights of the company equivalent of at least €100.000 b. 10% of the gross amount of the dividends in all other cases. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

Following an audit of Otis Servizi s.r.l. for FY 2007, 2008 and 2009 an assessment of additional taxable income was issued by the Italian tax authorities. The first part of the assessment related to interest received by OTIS in relation to the contract called “Cash management service for Group Treasury” (hereinafter “Cash Pooling Contract”) signed on 20 March 2001 between OTIS and the company United Technologies Intercompany Lending Ireland Limited (hereinafter “UTILI”) based in Ireland (hereinafter “Cash Pooling Relief”). In particular, the tax authorities reclassified the Cash Pooling Agreement as a financing contract and recalculated the rate of the interest income received by OTIS to be between 5.1 and 6.5 per cent (instead of the rate applied by the Company, which ranged between 3.5 and 4.8 per cent); The second part of the assessment related to of the royalty paid by OTIS to the American company Otis Elevator Company in relation to the “Licence Agreement relating to trademarks and company names” and the “Agreement for technical assistance and licence to use technical data, know-how and patents” signed on 1 January 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the “Royalty Relief”). In particular, the tax authorities had deemed the royalty agreed upon in the aforesaid contracts equal to 3.5% of the turnover as not congruous, recalculating it at 2% and disallowing its deductibility to the extent of the difference between the aforesaid rates. Not satisfied with the assessment an appeal was filed by OTIS. The Regional Tax Commission upheld the assessments and an appeal was then filed with the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Court decided in favour of OTIS, set aside the assessment and refered the case back to the Regional Tax Commission in a different composition. Excerpt related to interest received by OTIS under the cash pooling contract “In the present case, the Agenzia delle Entrate redetermined the rate of the interest income received by the OTIS in relation to the contract between the same and UTILI (cash pooling contract) concerning the establishment of a current account relationship for the unitary management of the group treasury. UTILI, as pooler or group treasurer, had entered into a bank account agreement with a credit institution in its own name, but on behalf of the group companies. At the same time, OTIS had mandated that bank to carry out the various tasks in order to fully implement the cash pooling agreement. Under this contract, all participating companies undertook to transfer their bank account balances (assets or liabilities) daily to the pooling company, crediting or debiting these balances to the pool account. As a result of this transfer, the individual current account balances of each participating company are zeroed out (‘zero balance cash pooling’). Notwithstanding the fact that the tax authorities do not dispute that this is a case relating to “zero balance cash pooling” (a circumstance that is, moreover, confirmed by the documents attached to the appeal), it should be noted that the same practice documentation of the Revenue Agency leads to the exclusion that, in the hypothesis in question, the cause of the transaction can be assimilated to a loan. In particular, in Circular 21/E of 3 June 2015, it is stated (p. 32) that “with reference to the sums moved within the group on the basis of cash pooling contracts in the form of the so-called zero balance system, it is considered that a financing transaction cannot be configured, pursuant to Article 10 of the ACE Decree. This is because the characteristics of the contract – which provides for the daily zeroing of the asset and liability balances of the group companies and their automatic transfer to the centralised account of the parent company, with no obligation to repay the sums thus transferred and with accrual of interest income or expense exclusively on that account – do not allow the actual possibility of disposing of the sums in question in order to carry out potentially elusive transactions’. These conclusions are confirmed in the answer to Interpretation No. 396 of 29 July 2022 (p. 5) where it is specified that ‘cash pooling contracts in the form of the so-called zero balance stipulated between group companies are characterised by reciprocal credits and debits of sums of money that originate from the daily transfer of the bank balance of the subsidiary/subsidiary to the parent company. As a result of this contract, the balance of the bank account held by the subsidiary/subsidiary will always be zero, since it is always transferred to the parent company. The absence of the obligation to repay the remittances receivable, the reciprocity of those remittances and the fact that the balance of the current account is uncollectible and unavailable until the account is closed combine to qualify the negotiated agreement as having characteristics that are not attributable to a loan of money in the relationship between the companies of the group’. That being so, the reasoning of the judgment under appeal falls below the constitutional minimum in so far as the CTR qualified the cash pooling relationship as a loan on the basis of the mere assertion that “the obligation to repay each other by the closing date of the account is not found in the case”. In so doing, the Regional Commission identified a generic financing contract function in the cash pooling without distinguishing between “notional cash pooling” and “zero balance cash pooling”, instead excluding, on the basis of the same documentation of practice of the Tax Administration, that in the second case (“zero balance”), a loan contract can be configured. The reasoning of the contested decision does not therefore make the basis of the decision discernible, because it contains arguments objectively incapable of making known the reasoning followed by the judge in forming his own conviction, since it cannot be left to the interpreter to supplement it with the most varied, hypothetical conjectures” (Sez. U. no. 22232 of 2016), the trial judge having failed to indicate in a congruous manner the elements from which he drew ...

“Forward KT Limited” submitted a report on controlled transactions for 2013 to the tax authority on 13 May 2015. The tax authority found that Forward KT Limited had failed to submit the report within the filing deadline of 1 October 2014. In an appeal “Forward KT Limited” claimed that within the meaning of Article 39 24 of the Tax Code of Ukraine, transactions where one party is a non-resident registered in a country where the income tax rate is 5 percentage points or more lower than in Ukraine, provided that the amount of such transactions exceeds UAH 50 million during a calendar year, are considered controlled. The Republic of Cyprus was included in the list of such countries from 25 December 2013, and the total amount of transactions with a non-resident for the period from 25 December 2013 to 31 December 2013 was only UAH 25.5 million. The Administrative Court dismissed the claim in a ruling later upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal. The lower courts concluded that transactions with the non-resident party for the period from 1 September 2013 to 31 December 2013 were controlled within the meaning of the Tax Code of Ukraine, and therefore the report on these transactions should have been submitted to the tax authority by 1 October 2014. “Forward KT Limited” then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the challenged court decisions. Excerpts “(…)The courts of the previous instances found that the total amount of transactions between the plaintiff and the non-resident counterparty for the period from 23 October 2013 to 31 December 2013 was UAH 82,466,456.12. Given that the plaintiff’s counterparty is registered in a country included in the list of countries where the corporate income tax rate is 5 per cent or more lower than in Ukraine and the total amount of transactions for the relevant calendar year is more than UAH 50 million, the courts of previous instances concluded that the business transactions of the plaintiff and Ktonel Holdings Limited are controlled within the meaning of Article 39 of the Tax Code of Ukraine. In its turn, the plaintiff argues that in this case only those transactions that took place between 25 December 2013 and 31 December 2013, i.e. from the date of adoption of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 1042-р dated 25 December 2013, should be taken into account. According to the plaintiff, the amount of the transaction for the said period is UAH 25,495,054.92, i.e. the transactions are not controlled. Sub-clause 39.2.1.4. of clause 39.2 of Article 39 of the Tax Code of Ukraine stipulates that the transactions referred to in sub-clauses 39.2.1.1 and 39.2.1.2 of this Article are recognised as controlled provided that the total amount of the taxpayer’s transactions with each counterparty equals or exceeds UAH 50 million (excluding value added tax) for the relevant calendar year. The court agrees with the conclusion of the courts of previous instances that if the total amount of transactions between the taxpayer and a non-resident whose place of registration is a country included in the List exceeds or equals UAH 50 million in the period from 01.09.2013 to 31.12.2013, such transactions are controlled.” (…) “The court agrees with the argument of the court of first instance that the actions of the plaintiff in preparing and submitting to the controlling authority the report on controlled transactions for 2013 on business transactions with Ktonel Holdings Limited refute the plaintiff’s claim that there are no signs of a controlled transaction, since by its actions the plaintiff has actually acknowledged the fact that it has an obligation to submit such a report. In view of the foregoing, the court agrees with the conclusion of the courts of first instance and appeal that the plaintiff’s business transactions with Ktonel Holdings Limited for the period from 1 September 2013 to 31 December 2013 are controlled within the meaning of the Tax Code of Ukraine, and the report on these transactions should have been submitted to the controlling authority by 1 October 2014. The arguments of the cassation appeal have not been confirmed and are refuted by the case file and do not give grounds to believe that the courts of first instance and appellate courts violated the substantive and procedural law in making the contested decision. Pursuant to Article 350(1) of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, the cassation court shall dismiss the cassation appeal and leave the court decisions unchanged if it finds that the courts of first instance and appellate courts did not misapply substantive law or violate procedural law in making court decisions or performing procedural actions. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the decision of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of appeal within the arguments and requirements of the cassation appeal and based on the established factual circumstances of the case, having verified the correct application of substantive and procedural law by the courts, sees no grounds to satisfy the cassation appeal”. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

The tax authority, based on the results of an audit, found that the prices in controlled export transactions of goods, carried out between “LK Ukraine Group” and related parties, did not comply with the arm’s length principle, i.e. the selling prices of the goods were lower than the minimum values of the arm’s length range. Disagreeing with this conclusion, “LK Ukraine Group” stated that the the method applied by the tax authority during the audit of prices in controlled transactions was unlawful and inappropriate due to the lack of information on all possible costs. At the request of the supervisory authority, “LK Ukraine Group” provided evidence that when determining the prices of goods, the group was guided by information based on monitoring, in particular, prices on the Euronext exchange, namely, the average selling prices of agricultural products on the terms of delivery EXW-port, which refuted the assertion of the authority that the controlled transactions did not comply with the arm’s length principle. The District Administrative Court dismissed the claim in a decision upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal. The courts of previous instances concluded that, based on the Tax Code of Ukraine, the tax authority had calculated the median of the range to determine the price in a controlled transaction, which is consistent with the arm’s length principle. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal of “LK Ukraine Group” and upheld the challenged court decisions. If the audit of controlled transactions on export of “rapeseed” goods establishes that prices in controlled transactions on export of goods of the commodity carried out by the taxpayer (taking into account the adjustment for the cost of transshipment of goods on board the vessel) are less than the minimum values of price intervals (ranges), i.e., do not comply with the arm’s length principle and the selling prices are lower than the price range, the terms of such transactions differ from the terms and conditions applied between unrelated parties in comparable uncontrolled transactions. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

A parent company resident in country Y1 was liable to tax on interest and dividends it had received from its Danish subsidiary. There should be no reduction of or exemption from withholding tax under the Parent-Subsidiary Directive or the Interest and Royalties Directive or under the double taxation treaty between Denmark and country Y1, as neither the parent company nor this company’s own Y1-resident parent company could be considered the rightful owner of the dividends and interest within the meaning of the directives and the treaty, and as there was abuse. The High Court thus found that the Y1-domestic companies were flow-through companies for the interest and dividends, which were passed on to underlying companies in the tax havens Y2-ø and Y3-ø. The High Court found that there was no conclusive evidence that the companies in Y2 were also flow-through entities and that the beneficial owner of the interest and dividends was an underlying trust or investors resident in Y4. The double taxation treaty between Denmark and the Y4 country could therefore not provide a basis for a reduction of or exemption from withholding tax on the interest and dividends. Nor did the High Court find that there was evidence that there was a basis for a partial reduction of the withholding tax requirement due to the fact that one of the investors in the company on Y3 island was resident in Y5 country, with which Denmark also had a double taxation treaty. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

The issue in the Danish beneficial ownership cases of NetApp Denmark ApS and TDC A/S was whether the companies were obliged to withhold dividend tax on distributions to foreign parent companies. The first case – NetApp Denmark ApS – concerned two dividend distributions of approximately DKK 566 million and DKK 92 million made in 2005 and 2006 to an intermediate parent company in Cyprus – and then on to NETAPP Bermuda. The second case – TDC A/S – concerned the distribution of dividends of approximately DKK 1.05 billion in 2011 to an intermediate parent company in Luxembourg – and then on to owner companies in the Cayman Islands. In both cases, the tax authorities took the view that the intermediate parent companies were so-called “flow-through companies” which were not the real recipients of the dividends, and that the real recipients (beneficial owners) were resident in countries not covered by the EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive (Bermuda and Cayman respectively). Therefore, withholding taxes should have been paid by the Danish companies on the distributions. Judgment of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court upheld the tax authorities’ assessment of additional withholding tax of 28 percent on a total amount of DKK 1,616 million plus a very substantial amount of interest on late payment. Only with regard to NetApp’s 2006 dividend payment of DKK 92 million did the court rule in favour of the company. Excerpts: “The Supreme Court agrees that the term “beneficial owner” must be understood in the light of the OECD Model Tax Convention, including the 1977 OECD Commentary on Anti-Abuse. According to these commentaries, the purpose of the term is to ensure that double tax treaties do not encourage tax avoidance or tax evasion through “artifices” and “artful legal constructions” which “enable the benefit to be derived both from the advantages conferred by certain national laws and from the tax concessions afforded by double tax treaties.” The 2003 Revised Commentaries have elaborated and clarified this, stating inter alia that it would not be “consistent with the object and purpose of the Convention for the source State to grant relief or exemption from tax in cases where a person who is resident of a Contracting State, other than as an agent or intermediary, merely acts as a conduit for another person who actually receives the income in question.” “The question is whether it can lead to a different result that NetApp Denmark – if the parent company at the time of the distribution had been NetWork Appliance Inc (NetApp USA) and not NetApp Cyprus – could have distributed the dividend to NetApp USA with the effect that the dividend would have been exempt from tax liability under the Double Taxation Convention between Denmark and the USA. On this issue, the CJEU’s judgment of 26 February 2019 states that it is irrelevant for the purposes of examining the group structure that some of the beneficial owners of the dividends transferred by flow-through companies are resident for tax purposes in a third State with which the source State has concluded a double tax treaty. According to the judgment, the existence of such a convention cannot in itself rule out the existence of an abuse of rights and cannot therefore call into question the existence of abuse of rights if it is duly established by all the facts which show that the traders carried out purely formal or artificial transactions, devoid of any economic or commercial justification, with the principal aim of taking unfair advantage of the exemption from withholding tax provided for in Article 5 of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive (paragraph 108). It also appears that, having said that, even in a situation where the dividend would have been exempt if it had been distributed directly to the company having its seat in a third State, it cannot be excluded that the objective of the group structure is not an abuse of law. In such a case, the group’s choice of such a structure instead of distributing the dividend directly to that company cannot be challenged (paragraph 110).” “In light of the above, the Supreme Court finds that the dividend of approximately DKK 92 million from NetApp Denmark was included in the dividend of USD 550 million that NetApp Bermuda transferred to NetApp USA on 3 April 2006. The Supreme Court further finds that the sole legal owner of that dividend was NetApp USA, where the dividend was also taxed. This is the case notwithstanding the fact that an amount of approximately DKK 92 million. – corresponding to the dividend – was not transferred to NetApp Cyprus until 2010 and from there to NetApp Bermuda. NetApp Bermuda had thus, as mentioned above, taken out the loan which provided the basis for distributing approximately DKK 92 million to NetApp USA in dividends from NetApp Denmark in 2006. Accordingly, the dividend of approximately DKK 92 million is exempt from taxation under Section 2(1)(c) of the Danish Corporate Income Tax Act in conjunction with the Danish-American Double Taxation Convention. NetApp Denmark has therefore not been required to withhold dividend tax under Section 65(1) of the Danish Withholding Tax Act.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

The question at issue was whether a Crop tax adviser had acted in accordance with the requirements of a reasonably competent and reasonably acting adviser when advising on the so-called royalty routing and its implementation. Judgement of the Court of Appeal “Crop is liable for the damages arising from the shortcoming. For the assessment of that damage, the case must be referred to the Statement of Damages, as the District Court has already decided. To answer the question of whether the likelihood of damage resulting from the shortcomings is plausible, a comparison must be made between the current situation and the situation in which business rates would have been applied. For the hypothetical situation, the rates to be recommended by the expert should be used. For the current situation, the Tax Authorities have agreed to adjusted pricing. The question whether and to what extent [the respondents] et al. can be blamed for insufficiently limiting their loss in the negotiations with the tax authority, as argued by Crop, should be adjudicated in the proceedings for the determination of damages, because it has not been made plausible beforehand that Crop’s obligation to pay compensation should lapse in full because this is required by the requirements of fairness under the given circumstances” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

The tax authority found that P.sp. z o.o. had understated its income from sales to related parties in the P. Group. The tax authority selected three comparable independent wholesalers and established a range of profit margins between 4.02% and 6.24%. As P. sp. z o.o. had a profit margin of only 2.84% on its wholesale activities, an adjustment was made to the taxable income. A complaint was filed by “P. sp. z o.o.” with the Administrative Court, which was dismissed, and an appeal was then filed with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court. The the Supreme Administrative Court, annulled the appealed decision in its entirety and ordered – when re-examining the case – the tax authority to follow the interpretation of the law made by the Supreme Administrative Court. In a very comprehensive judgment, the Court ruled on a wide range of issues, including Whether and how to take into account income received for other activities (marketing services) when determining the arm’s length income. The choice and application of transfer pricing methods The objectives and standards of a compability analysis and benchmarking study conducted by the tax authority The use of statistical methods (IQR) when the number of comparables in a benchmark is limited. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

“Shipping Investor Cyprus” was a limited liability company domiciled in Cyprus. In the financial years 2010 and 2011 it received interest income from convertible bonds subject to German withholding tax. “Shipping Investor Cyprus” had no substance itself, but an associated company, also domiciled in Cyprus, had both offices and employees. The dispute was whether “Shipping Investor Cyprus” was entitled to a refund of the German withholding tax and whether this should be determined under the old or the new version of Section 50d(3) of the German Income Tax Act (EStG). The court of first instance concluded that “Shipping Investor Cyprus” claim for a refund was admissible because the old version of the provisions in Section 50d (3) EStG was contrary to European law. The tax authorities appealed this decision. Judgement of the National Tax Court The National Tax Court found that a general reference to the economic activity of another group company in the country of residence of the recipient of the payment was not sufficient to satisfy the substance requirement. According to the court, the lower court had not sufficiently examined whether the substance requirements of Section 50d (3) EStG – in its new version – were met. On this basis, the case was referred back to the lower court for a new hearing. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

An employee (tax manager) of Amdocs Inc did not cooperate with the Canada Revenue Agency during several audits of the company and did not inform his superior about the audits. The audits resulted in tax reassessments for FY 2012 – 2014. The reassessment concerning FY 2012 resulted in income tax payable by $3,353,906, but by the time the employee informed his superior of the reassessment in 2019, Amdocs was time barred from objecting by virtue of the limitation periods. With respect to the assessments for FY 2013 and 2014 the limitation period for objections had not yet elapsed. Amdocs Inc filed an appeal with the court in regards of the denied access to object on the assessment for FY 2012. Judgement of the Federal Court The court dismissed the appeal of Amdocs and decided in favor of the tax authorities. Excerpts “…I find the Minister’s decision is reasonable. The Minister’s decision is internally coherent and justified in relation to the relevant facts and law, and the Applicant has not identified any flaws in the Minister’s decision that are sufficiently central or significant. I therefore dismiss this application for judicial review.” ...

On 3 May 2021, the Danish High Court ruled in two “beneficial owner” cases concerning the question of whether withholding tax must be paid on dividends distributed by Danish subsidiaries to foreign parent companies. The first case – NETAPP Denmark ApS – concerned two dividend distributions of approx. 566 million DKK and approx. 92 million made in 2005 and 2006 by a Danish company to its parent company in Cyprus. The National Tax Court had upheld the Danish company in that the dividends were exempt from withholding tax pursuant to the Corporation Tax Act, section 2, subsection. 1, letter c, so that the company was not obliged to pay withholding tax. The Ministry of Taxation brought the case before the courts, claiming that the Danish company should include – and thus pay – withholding tax of a total of approx. 184 million kr. The second case – TDC A/S – concerned the National Tax Tribunal’s binding answer to two questions posed by another Danish company regarding tax exemption of an intended – and later implemented – distribution of dividends in 2011 of approx. 1.05 billion DKK to the company’s parent company in Luxembourg. The National Tax Court had ruled in favor of the company in that the distribution was tax-free pursuant to section 2 (1) of the Danish Corporation Tax Act. 1, letter c, 3. pkt. The Ministry of Taxation also brought this case before the courts. The Eastern High Court has, as the first instance, dealt with the two cases together. The European Court of Justice has ruled on a number of questions referred in the main proceedings, see Joined Cases C-116/16 and C-117/16. In both cases, the Ministry of Taxation stated in general that the parent companies in question were so-called “flow-through companies” that were not real recipients of the dividends, and that the real recipients (beneficial owners) were in countries that were not covered by the EU parent / subsidiary directive. in the first case – NETAPP Denmark ApS – the High Court upheld the company’s position that the dividend distribution in 2005 of approx. 566 million did not trigger withholding tax, as the company had proved that the distribution had been redistributed from the Cypriot parent company, which had to be considered a “flow-through company”, to – ultimately – the group’s American parent company. The High Court stated, among other things, that according to the Danish-American double taxation agreement, it would have been possible to distribute the dividend directly from the Danish company to the American company, without this having triggered Danish taxation. As far as the distribution in 2006 of approx. 92 million On the other hand, the High Court found that it had not been proven that the dividend had been transferred to the group’s American parent company. In the second case – TDC A/S – the High Court stated, among other things, that in the specific case there was no further documentation of the financial and business conditions in the group, and the High Court found that it had to be assumed that the dividend was merely channeled through the Luxembourg parent company. on to a number of private equity funds based in countries that were not covered by tax exemption rules, ie. partly the parent / subsidiary directive, partly a double taxation agreement with Denmark. On that basis, the Danish company could not claim tax exemption under the Directive or the double taxation agreement with Luxembourg, and the dividend was therefore not tax-exempt. Click here for English translation ...

Azot is a producer of mineral fertilizers and one of the largest industrial groups in Ukraine. Following an audit the tax authorities concluded that Azot’s export of mineral fertilizers to a related party in Switzerland, NF Trading AG, had been priced significantly below the arm’s length price, and moreover that Azot’s import of natural gas from Russia via a related party in Cyprus, Ostchem Holding Limited, had been priced significantly above the arm’s length price. On that basis, an assessment of additional corporate income tax in the amount of 43 million UAH and a decrease in the negative value by 195 million UAH was issued. In a decision from 2019 the Administrative Court ruled in favor of the tax authorities. This decision was then appealed by Azot to the Supreme Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal and decided in favor of the tax authorities. Click here for translation ...

Following an audit the tax authorities issued a tax assessment and a substantial fine to S.p.A. ST. MEDICAL related to costs deducted in FY 2010, which the tax authorities claimed were partially fictitious. “the Economic Police carried out, on 22.10.2012, a tax audit of the appellant, which, during the contested management period (1.1.-31.12.2010), had as its business the wholesale trade in medical and surgical equipment, tools and similar items, keeping, for the purpose of monitoring its business, books and records of category C of the Commercial Code. During the audit carried out, in addition to the books kept by the appellant, various items of information found at its registered office (sales invoices, service receipts, delivery notes, delivery notes, exclusive distribution contracts between the appellant and foreign companies, with attached price lists of the products to be distributed, etc.) were seized for further processing, including items issued by the limited liability company ‘Praxis Company of Medical Equipment Ltd’ (‘Praxis’), established in Cyprus, the object of whose activity is either Following the completion of the processing of that information, the audit report of 12.3.2014 of the Financial Police was drawn up, which included the following findings: (a) the appellant company had Praxis as its main supplier, of which it was, in essence, the sole customer; (b) from 2008 onwards, the Cyprus company had as its sole shareholder the company ‘Poren Ventures Limited’, a company incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin Islands, with capital consisting of 50. 000 shares, of which 49 999 shares were held by the sole partner and manager of the appellant; c) the Cypriot company operated, in the context of triangular transactions, as an intermediary between suppliers – foreign companies (Alphatec Spine, Misonix INV, PFM, Sorin Group and Sorin Biomedica Cardio S.R.L. ) and the appellant, despite the fact that the latter was able to obtain the same products directly from foreign companies, with some of which it had concluded exclusive distribution agreements (Alphatec Spine, Misonix INV and PFM), (d) in the context of the transactions between them, the Cypriot company issued invoices to the appellant, in which it indicated purchase prices for the products supplied which were, on average, 241% higher than the prices at which the same products were priced by the foreign companies …and (e) the goods supplied were sent by the foreign firms directly to the appellant, which then sold them to public hospitals in the country at the high prices at which they had been supplied by the Cypriot company, thereby technically inflating the cost of their purchase (by recording the invoices issued in that regard in its books) and reducing its profit accordingly, to the detriment of the interests of the Greek State. ” “according to the auditors’ estimate, to the value of these products in case their purchase had been made directly by the foreign companies, without the mediation of the Cypriot company, amounted to 1.531.457€, i.e. an amount, by 3.384.906€, lower than the value indicated on the invoices issued for the respective transactions (4.916.364€). During the audit, it was also found that, for the supply of those goods, the appellant, although it had entered in its books all the purchase invoices issued by Praxis in 2010, ultimately paid to Praxis, by means of bank transfers, only part of the value indicated on those invoices, namely €4,809,073, against a total debt of €10,119,105. The report of the Economic Police was sent to the appellant’s Income Tax Department IZ of Athens, which carried out a new tax audit…” “Following this, the auditor of the Athens IZ Tax Office…..drew up the report of 29. 4.4.2015, in which it fully adopted the findings of the Financial Police, from which, in its assessment, it appeared that the foreign firms treated the appellant and Praxis as a single enterprise, in the interests of the same person. In the same report, it proposed to impose a fine on the appellant for the receipt by it of invoices issued by the Cypriot company which were partially fictitious in terms of price. There followed the 173/29.4.2015 act of the Head of the Athens IZ Tax Office, by which, invoking Articles 2(2)(a) and (b) of the Greek Tax Code, the Head of the Athens Tax Office issued a decision of the Head of the Athens Tax Office. 1 and 18 par. 2 of the Commercial Code and 5 par. 10 and 19 par. 4 of Law No. 2523/1997, imposed a fine on the appellant for receiving partially fictitious tax information, amounting to twice the value of the transactions classified as fictitious (€3,384,906 x 2 = €6,769,813). “ The assessment and fine was later upheld by the Administrative Court and the Administrative Court of Appeal. Not satisfied with this result, S.p.A. ST. MEDICAL filed an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Court partially allowed the appeal of S.p.A. ST. MEDICAL and remanded the case back to the tax authorities in order to examine whether instead the conditions for imposition of a penalty provided for in Article 39(7) of the Income Tax Code were fulfilled. Excerpts ” transactions in which the value shown on the tax documents is higher than the value which could have been agreed under the prevailing market conditions do not, in principle, constitute a case of partial deception, provided that that value corresponds, as stated above, to the price actually agreed between the parties. ” “In the view of the Court of First Instance, such is the nature of the overpricing of the products sold by the Cypriot company, resulting, in its view, from the large discrepancy between the purchase price and the selling price, from the close economic dependence of the two companies and from the general circumstances in which those transactions took place. However, in the light of what has already been said, that finding is incorrect, in the light of the ground of appeal in the main proceedings, as set out in the appeal of 24.10.2008 C ...

Brewery S.A. had transferred its trademarks to a subsidiary in Cyprus and in subsequent years paid royalties/licences for the use of the trademarks. The tax authorities had disregarded deductions of the royalty/licence payments for tax purposes, and the resulting assessment of additional taxable income was later upheld by the District Administrative Court. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court In its judgment, the court stated that it is beyond the scope of the legal possibilities of tax authorities to assess legal actions and to derive – contrary to their content – negative tax consequences for the taxpayer, if such authorisation does not directly result from a tax provision. The court referred to the position contained in the NSA’s judgment of 16 December 2005, in the light of which, the tax authorities have no grounds under tax law for questioning effectively concluded agreements, even if their purpose is to reduce the tax burden. Seeking to pay the lowest possible taxes is not prohibited by law; it is, as it were, a natural right of every taxpayer. It is up to the tax authorities and then the administrative court to assess how effectively (in accordance with the law) these aspirations are realised by a particular entity . In conclusion, the NSA stated that in the light of the above remarks and the factual circumstances of that case, it is reasonable to conclude that, from the perspective of the content of Article 15(1) of the TAX Act, only the assessment of the transaction between the appellant company and the Cypriot company, connected with determining whether the expenditure incurred on account of the concluded sub-license agreement fulfils the prerequisites resulting from that provision, and in particular whether there is a causal link between the incurred expenditure and the obtained (objectively obtainable) revenue or the preservation or protection of a source of revenue, is of significance. The court gave a positive answer to this question. Since the transaction of selling copyright to trademarks was legally effective, it means that the ownership of these rights was transferred to another entity, even if it is a company controlled by a domestic company. Therefore, if the exclusive holder of the rights to use certain property rights is another entity than the applicant company, and in order to maintain the current domestic production, it was necessary to use the right to these trademarks, even in the form of a sub-licence (the acquisition of which was also not questioned) and production and sale of goods with these trademarks was carried out, it is difficult not to see the connection of the incurred expense with the source of revenue, which is economic activity, and the fact that the expense was incurred in order to obtain revenue. The Court stated that the tax authorities did not make use in that case of the possibility provided in the legal state of 2011 by the provision of Article 11 of the tax act. This regulation, concerning the possibility of correcting the prices applied between related parties, in fact introduced an exception to the principle of determining income taking into account the prices applied between counterparties. Its purpose was and is to prevent the erosion of the tax base through the harmful transfer of profits between related parties. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

The facts in brief are that TMW ASPF CYPRUS (hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’) is a private limited company incorporated in Cyprus and is engaged in the business of making investments in the real estate sector. The company in the year 2008 had made investments in independent third-party companies in India (hereinafter collectively known as ‘investee companies’) engaged in real estate development vide fully convertible debentures (FCCDs). It was these investments that made the investee companies an associated enterprise of the assessee as per TP provisions. The assessee had also entered agreements, according to which the assessee was entitled to a coupon rate of 4%. Further, after the conversion of the FCCDs into equity shares, the promoter of Indian Companies would buy back at an agreed option price. The option price would be such that the investor gets the original investment paid on subscription to the FCCDs plus a return of 18% per annum. During the impugned assessment year, the Assessee had received  an  interest  income  of  Rs.60,46,895/  –  from  one  of  the  three investee companies and that too only for the first half of the year. No interest was received by the assessee from any other company. The Assessee Company had sent multiple notices and followed up with the investee companies in relation to the defaults and non compliances with the agreed terms of the agreements. However, no resolution could be sought in this regard. The assessee company on account of the downturn in the real estate market and the fact that the companies were in bad financial position and facing cash crunch, waived its right to receive interest under a mutual agreement with the investee. The case of the assessee company was selected for detailed scrutiny and the matter was referred by the Assessing Officer (AO) to the Transfer Pricing officer (TPO) to examine whether the international transactions entered by the assessee during the captioned assessment year were at arm’s length or not. The TPO held that the assessee was to earn an assured return of 18% and determined the arm’s length price of the coupon rate to be 18%, instead of coupon rate of 4%. Accordingly,  taxable  income  was  revised  to  Rs.36,75,86,430/-  in  the draft assessment order by the AO. Decision of the Court: One of the main contention raised before us by the Counsel that assessee being a non resident and Cyprus based company therefore it was entitled to the benefit of India Cyprus DTAA Article 11(1) of India-Cyprus DTAA reads as under :- “Interest arising in a Contracting State and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State may be taxed in that other State.” The aforesaid para envisages that for taxing the interest income in the hands of a non-resident, it is necessary that the interest should arise in a contracting state, i.e., twin conditions of accrual as well as the payment are to be satisfied. If there is no accrual or actual payment received then same is to be decided within the scope of Article 11(1).  What  the  TPO/AO  have  sought  to  tax  is that,  assessee was supposed to receive interest of 18%, if the contingent event would have arisen, i.e., if in the event, the option was exercised by the assessee to sell its converted shares to the promoters of investee company at an option price then it would have given the return of 18%.  Thus,  entire  edifice  of  the  TPO/AO  was  based  on  fixation  of contingent event which assessee was supposed to receive. It is also matter of record no such conversion was actualised and assessee remained invested even during the year under consideration. The transfer pricing adjustment has been made on this hypothetical amount of interest receivable. Whether such notional income can be brought to tax even under the transfer pricing provision, has been dealt by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India (supra), wherein their Lordships have held that even income arising from international transaction must satisfy the test of income under the Act and must  find its home in one of the charging provisions. Here in this case, nowhere the  TPO/AO  has been  able  to establish  that  notional  interest satisfy the test of income arising or received under the charging provision of Income Tax Act. If income is not taxable in terms  of section 4, then chapter X cannot be made applicable, because section 92 provides for computing the income arising from international transactions with regard to the ALP. Only the interest income chargeable to tax can be subject matter of transfer pricing in India. Making any transfer pricing adjustment on interest which has neither been received nor accrued to the assessee cannot be held to be chargeable in terms of the Income Tax Act read with Article 11(1) of DTAA. Here it cannot be the case of accrual of interest also, because none of the investee companies have acknowledge that any interest payment is due, albeit they have been requesting for waiving of interest of even coupon rate of 4%, leave alone the return of 18% which was dependent upon some future contingencies. Assessee despite all its efforts has acceded to such request. Further, in  the  India Cyprus DTAA wherein similar phrase has been used pertaining to FTS and Royalty in India Cyprus DTAA, Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that assessment of royalty or FTS should be made in the year in which amount have actually received and not otherwise. The coordinate bench of Mumbai ITAT in the case of Pramerica ASPF II Cyprus Holding Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) on exactly similar set of facts, addition on account of notional interest was made; the Tribunal has held  that  the  interest  income  in  question  can  only  be  taxed  on payment  /receipt  basis.  The  relevant  observation  has already  been incorporated above. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has confirmed the said finding. Similar view has been taken by the ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of DCIT Inzi Control ...

“Brewery S.A.” had transferred its trademarks to a subsidiary in Cyprus and in subsequent years paid royalties/licences for the use of the trademarks. The tax authorities disregarded the deductions of the royalty/licence payments, and issued an assessment of additional taxable income. An appeal was filed by “Brewery S.A.” Judgement of the District Administrative Court The court dismissed the appeal of “Brewery S.A.” and upheld the assessment issued by the tax authorities. “It should be emphasised that the tax authorities have not questioned the already well-established view that sub-licence fees are, in principle, deductible costs. They did not question either their incurrence by the company or their amount. However, in the specific circumstances, they pointed out that these fees were not purposeful and have no connection to revenue. On the other hand, if, in a specific case, an analysis of the entity’s conduct in the light of the principles of logic and life experience leads to the conclusion of an obvious and complete lack of sense of the actions taken, aiming, in principle, not at the desire to actually achieve a given revenue, but to artificially, solely for tax purposes, generate costs, one may speak of the lack of a cause and effect relationship referred to in Article 15(1) of the CIT Act. This is because then the taxpayer’s purpose is different – instead of generating revenue, he or she seeks only to avoid paying tax” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

Azot is a producer of mineral fertilizers and one of the largest industrial groups in Ukraine. Following an audit the tax authorities concluded that Azot’s export of mineral fertilizers to a related party in Switzerland, NF Trading AG, had been priced significantly below the arm’s length price, and moreover that Azot’s import of natural gas from Russia via a related party in Cyprus, Ostchem Holding Limited, had been priced significantly above the arm’s length price. On that basis, an assessment of additional corporate income tax in the amount of 43 million UAH and a decrease in the negative value by 195 million UAH was issued. The Court ruled in favor of the tax authorities. Click here for translation ...

The Bundesfinanzhof confirmed prior case law according to which the provisions on hidden deposits and hidden profit distributions must be observed in the context of the additional taxation. On the question of economic activity of the controlled foreign company, the Bundesfinanzhof refers to the ruling of the European Court of Justice concerning Cadbury-Schweppes from 2006. According to paragraphs §§ 7 to 14 in the Außensteuergesetz (AStG) profits from controlled foreign companies without business activity can be taxed in Germany. In the case at hand the subsidiary was located in a rented office in Cyprus and employed a resident managing director. Her job was to handle correspondence with clients, to carry out and supervise payment transactions, manage business records and keep records. She was also entrusted with obtaining book licenses to order these sub-licenses for the benefit of three of Russia’s and Ukraine’s affiliates, which distributed the books in the Russian-speaking market. The license income earned by subsidiary was taxed at 10 percent in Cyprus. The Income was considered ‘passive’ as the subsidiary lacked the necessary ‘actual economic activity’. On that basis the Bundesfinanzhof rejected the appeal of the taxpayer. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

Following an audit of “Cyprus Corp” for FY 2011, the tax authorities found that the intra-group purchases worth 6.363.281,83 € for mechanical and medical equipment from a group company in Cyprus, were overpriced by 3.833.503,78 €. Corporate taxation i Cyprus is significantly lower than in Greece. Hence, the overpricing resulted in the Cyprus Corp having technically increased its (high) tax depreciation in Greece and (low) tax profits in Cyprus, which in combination resulted in a lower overall tax payment of the group. An revised tax assessment – and a substantial fine – was issued by the tax authorities. Cypres Corp filed an appeal. Judgement of the Court The court predominantly decided in favor of the tax authorities. “Because, during the financial period 1/1-31/12/2011, Mr K. is a shareholder in the applicant company with a 22.81% share, chairman and managing director until 23/08/2011 and from 30/06/2010 to 01/11/2012 the sole shareholder of the Cypriot company ” “, with the result that the transacting companies in the present case are linked by a direct relationship of direct material management, financial dependence and control. Because, the amount of 135.471,48 € declared as accounting difference with the amended Income Tax Return for the financial period 01/01/2011 – 31/12/2011 with the number and date of filing 29/05/17 in application of the provisions of Law 4446 /2016, relates to part of the total amount of depreciation of EUR 194,077.55, which the applicant carried out on the fixed assets purchased from the Cypriot company ” “, as stated in the relevant partial income tax audit report of D. O.Y.A. PATRON and is apparent from the documents No 5 and 7 lodged with the appeal, namely (over-invoicing/ value of purchases from the Cypriot company x total depreciation: € 3 833 503,78/ € 6 363 281,83 = 60,24 % X € 322 174,55 = € 194 077,95). Since the purchases of the applicant company from the Cypriot company ” “, relate to fixed capital goods on which depreciation is carried out and were not deducted as expenditure from the gross income for the financial year 2011, the profit within the meaning of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 39 of Law No 2238/1994 is made through the depreciation carried out each year on fixed assets worth € 6,363,281.83. The fifth (fifth) plea of the applicant company is therefore accepted, all the others being rejected.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

Following an audit of “Cyprus Corp” for FY 2011, the tax authorities found that intra-group purchases worth 5.947.034,44 € for mechanical and medical equipment from a related company in Cyprus, were overpriced by 3.693.150,15 €. Corporate taxation i Cyprus is significantly lower than in Greece. Hence, the overpricing resulted in the Cyprus Corp having technically increased its (high) tax depreciation in Greece and (low) tax profits in Cyprus, which in combination resulted in a lower overall tax payment of the group. An revised tax assessment – and a substantial fine – was issued by the tax authorities. Cypres Corp filed an appeal. Judgement of the Court The court predominantly decided in favor of the tax authorities. “Because, in the financial period 1/1-31/12/2011 Mr. is a shareholder in the applicant company with a 28.18% share, and from 30/06/2010 to 01/11/2012 the sole shareholder of the Cypriot company ‘……. “, with the result that the transacting undertakings in the present case are linked by a relationship of direct and substantial management, economic dependence and control. Because, the amount of 156.920,37 € declared as accounting difference with the amended Income Tax Return for the financial period 01/01/2011-31/12/2011 with the number of the first day and date of filing 29/05/17 in application of the provisions of Law No. 4446/2016, relates to part of the total amount of depreciation of 176.684,43, which the applicant carried out on the fixed assets purchased from the Cypriot company ‘………. “, as stated in the relevant partial income tax audit report of the D.O.Y.A. PATRON and as shown in the documents No 5 and 7 filed with the appeal, namely (Over-invoicing/value of purchases from the Cypriot company x total depreciation: € 3,693,150.15/ € 5,947,034.44 = 62.1 % X € 284,515.99 = € 176,684.43). Since the applicant company’s purchases from the Cypriot company ‘………. “, relate to fixed capital goods on which depreciation is carried out, and were not deducted as expenditure from the gross income for the financial year 2011, the profit within the meaning of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 39 of Law No 2238/1994 is made through the depreciation carried out each year on fixed assets worth € 5,947,034.44. The fifth (5th) plea of the applicant company is therefore accepted, all the others being rejected. Since, as regards the fine under Article 39(7) of Law No. 2238/1994, the Act imposing the fine No. /2017 was correctly imposed and is confirmed.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

Oxfam’s list of Tax Havens, in order of significance are: (1) Bermuda (2) the Cayman Islands (3) the Netherlands (4) Switzerland (5) Singapore (6) Ireland (7) Luxembourg (8) Curaçao (9) Hong Kong (10) Cyprus (11) Bahamas (12) Jersey (13) Barbados, (14) Mauritius and (15) the British Virgin Islands. Most notably is The Netherlands placement as no. 3 on the list. Oxfam researchers compiled the list by assessing the extent to which countries employ the most damaging tax policies, such as zero corporate tax rates, the provision of unfair and unproductive tax incentives, and a lack of cooperation with international processes against tax avoidance (including measures to increase financial transparency). Many of the countries on the list have been implicated in tax scandals. For example Ireland hit the headlines over a tax deal with Apple that enabled the global tech giant to pay a 0.005 percent corporate tax rate in the country. And the British Virgin Islands is home to more than half of the 200,000 offshore companies set up by Mossack Fonseca – the law firm at the heart of the Panama Papers scandal. The United Kingdom does not feature on the list, but four territories that the United Kingdom is ultimately responsible for do appear: the Cayman Islands, Jersey, Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands ...