The case concerned the determination of the arm’s length value of shares transferred between related parties. The tax authorities had assessed the value using the discounted cash flow (DCF) method and issued an adjustment based on that valuation. DCF S.A. challenged the assessment before the Tax Court, arguing that the DCF method was not among the transfer pricing methods recognized under Peruvian law for the 2017 fiscal year. Judgment The Tax Court ruled in favor of DCF S.A., finding that the tax authorities had neither applied an approved method nor correctly interpreted the transfer pricing regulations applicable in 2017. Since the DCF method was not implemented in Peruvian law at the time, it could not be used to determine the arm’s length value. The Court held that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method should have been applied instead. Excerpt in English “It is important to note that in Request No. and in the appealed resolution (pages 943, 945/reverse and 1354/reverse), the Administration states that the most appropriate transfer pricing method for the transaction under analysis is the CUP and that the financial valuation technique used to determine the assigned value of the shares is the DCF. In this regard, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of subsection e) of Article 32-A of the Income Tax Law, the CUP method consists of ‘determining the market value of goods and services between related parties considering the price or amount of the consideration that would have been agreed with or between independent parties in comparable transactions’. Likewise, paragraph 1 of subsection a) of Article 113 of the Income Tax Law Regulations indicates that the CUP ‘is compatible with transactions involving the sale of goods for which there are prices on national or international markets and with the provision of relatively simple services.’ Furthermore, the OECD Guidelines14 in paragraph 6.157 indicate that DCF ‘consists of calculating the value of an intangible asset based on the estimated value of the cash flows that the intangible asset can generate during its expected useful life.’ It adds that ‘this value can be estimated by calculating the present value of the expected cash flows.’ It also warns that ‘according to this approach, the valuation requires, among other things, a realistic and reliable definition of financial forecasts, growth rates, discount rates, the useful lives of intangible assets, and the tax consequences of the transaction.’ That according to the Income Tax Law and the OECD Guidelines, while the CUP method seeks to determine market value by comparing prices agreed with or between third parties, the DCF technique is a valuation technique that consists of determining the present value of future cash flows, the soundness of which requires ‘realistically and reliably defining’ various elements that support the assumptions that, in turn, determine the estimated final value, which leads to the conclusion that they are not equivalent methods. From the observations made, it does not appear that the Administration correctly applied the CUP method, since it bases its objection on the observation of certain elements used in the DCF methodology, without establishing a ‘comparable transaction’ in itself, given that this DCF does not seek comparable transactions but, in order to obtain the value of the company, as outlined above, calculates the current value of its funds using an appropriate discount rate, based on the level of risk and historical volatility, among other elements. Therefore, it is understood that the method used by the Administration to determine the market value of the transaction under analysis is the DCF[15]. Therefore, contrary to the Administration’s assertion, it has not been proven that it carried out an analysis in accordance with transfer pricing regulations, as established in Article 32-A(e) of the Income Tax Law, applicable in the present case, and the objection is therefore not duly substantiated[16], it should be lifted, the contested determination resolution should be set aside, and the appealed resolution should be revoked. That, in accordance with the ruling, there is no point in issuing a ruling on the other arguments intended to challenge the determination of the objection.” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

In 2020 “Mineral Export SA” received a tax assessment for FY 2010 after the Peruvian tax authorities (SUNAT) had made two large transfer pricing adjustments: (i) an uplift of the remuneration it had received for its business activities (export of mineral concentrates to related parties), and (ii) an uplift of the price at which it had sold a controlling shareholding to a another group company. “Mineral Export SA” appealed to the Peruvian Tax Court. Judgment The Court partially upheld the adjustment concerning remuneration of the activities carried out, but it set aside the adjustment related to the price of the shares it had sold. In determining the remuneration for the activities carried out, the tax authorities had disallowed five comparability adjustments, discarding most of the taxpayer’s comparables, and recalculated the profit margins. The Court agreed that the comparability adjustments made by “Mineral Export SA” were unsupported and that the tax authorities could restrict the sample to two comparables. But according to the Court the tax authorities had been wrong to force a conversion into local currency when calculating the margins. Because the functional currency is the US dollar and that unit best reflects economic reality, the tax authorities would have to redo the TNMM analysis in dollars and re-issue the assessment. The adjustment to the price of the shares sold by “Mineral Export SA” to a another group company was nullified. In 2010 Peruvian law allowed only the six transfer-pricing methods listed in article 32-A(e); the discounted-cash-flow technique used by the tax authorities was not among them until 2017. Other methods was first formally embraced by Peru in 2017, and for prior years the tax authorities could therefore not impose valuations derived from a discounted-cash-flow method. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

SA SACLA, which trades in protective clothing, footwear and small equipment, was the subject of a tax audit covering the financial years 2007, 2008 and 2009. In 2008, Sacla had sold a portfolio of trademarks to a related party, Involvex SA, a company incorporated under Luxembourg law, for the sum of 90,000 euros. In a proposed assessment issued in 2011, the tax authorities increased Sacla’s taxable income on the basis of Article 57 of the General Tax Code, taking the view that Sacla had made an indirect transfer of profits in the form of a reduction in the selling price by selling a set of brands/trademarks held by it for EUR 90,000 to a Luxembourg company, Involvex, which benefited from a preferential tax regime. The tax authorities had estimated the value of the trademarks at €20,919,790, a value that was reduced to €11,288,000 following interdepartmental discussions. In a February 2020, the Lyon Administrative Court of Appeal, after rejecting the objection of irregularity of the judgment, decided that an expert would carry out a valuation to determine whether the sale price of the trademarks corresponded to their value. The valuation was to take into account an agreed exemption from the payment of royalties for a period of five years granted by Involvex to SA SACLA. The expert’s report was filed on 8 April 2021 and, upon receipt of the report, SA SACLA asked the court to modify the judgment by considering that the value of the transferred trademarks should be set at between EUR 1.3 million and EUR 2.1 million and that the penalties for wilful infringement should be waived. By judgment of 19 August 2021, the court rejected SACLA’s request and set the value of the trademarks – in accordance with the expert’s report – at 5,897,610 euros. “The value of the trademarks transferred by SACLA, initially declared by that company in the amount of EUR 90,000 excluding tax, was corrected by the tax authorities to EUR 11,288,000 excluding tax, and was then reduced by the judgment under appeal to EUR 8,733,348 excluding tax. It follows from the investigation, in particular from the expert’s report filed on 8 April 2021, that this value, taking into account the exemption from payment of royalties granted by the purchaser of the trademarks in the amount of 2,400,000 euros excluding tax and after taking into account corporate income tax, must be established at the sum of 5,897,610 euros excluding tax. The result is a difference between the agreed price and the value of the trade marks transferred in the amount of EUR 5 807 610 excluding tax, which constitutes an advantage for the purchaser. The applicant, who merely contests the amount of that advantage, does not invoke any interest or consideration of such a nature as to justify such an advantage. In these circumstances, the administration provides the proof that it is responsible for the existence of a reduction in the price of the sale of assets and the existence of an indirect transfer of profits abroad.” SACLA then appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, which by decision no. 457695 of 27 October 2022 set aside articles 3 and 6 of the judgment from the Administrative Court of Appeal and remanded the case for further considerations. “2. In a judgment before the law of 13 February 2020, the Lyon Administrative Court of Appeal decided that, before ruling on the Sacla company’s request, an expert appraisal would be carried out in order to determine whether the sale price of the trademarks sold by that company corresponded to their value, taking into consideration, in particular, the waiver of payment of royalties for a period of five years granted by the purchasing company, Involvex, to the Sacla company. In order to fulfil the mission entrusted to them by the court, the expert and his assistant first considered four methods, then abandoned the method of comparables and the method of capitalisation of royalties, and finally retained only two methods, the method of historical costs and the method of discounting future flows, from which they derived a weighted average. It follows from the statements in the judgment under appeal that the court, after considering that the historical cost method did not allow the effect of corporation tax to be taken into account with any certainty and led to a valuation almost eight times lower than the discounted cash flow method, rejected the former method and adopted only the latter and considered that there was no need to carry out a weighting, since, in its view, the discounted cash flow method proved to be the most accurate. 3. It follows from the statements in the judgment under appeal that the court, after fixing the value of the trade marks transferred by Sacla at EUR 8 733 348 exclusive of tax, an amount also retained by the administrative court, intended to apply the discount recommended by the expert report of 7 April 2021 in order to take account of the exemption from payment of royalties granted for five years by the purchaser of the trade marks. In fixing the amount of that discount at EUR 2 400 000 exclusive of tax, whereas the expert report which it intended to apply estimated it, admittedly, at that amount in absolute terms, but by applying a rate of 37% to a value of the trade marks transferred estimated at EUR 6 500 000, the Court distorted that expert report and gave insufficient reasons for its judgment.” Judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal The Court ruled as follows “…by selling on 19 October 2008 a set of trademarks held by it at a reduced price to Involvex, a company incorporated under Luxembourg law, had carried out an indirect transfer of profits. In a judgment of 10 October 2017, the Lyon Administrative Court, after finding that there was no need to rule on the claims for suspension of payment submitted at first instance, granted partial discharge of the additional corporation tax and social security contributions to ...

The case concerned the valuation of intangible assets transferred from a Danish company to an affiliated foreign company. The Tax Tribunal basically agreed with the valuation of the expert appraisers according to the DCF model, but corrected the assumptions with regard to revenue growth in the budget period and the value of the tax advantage. Finally, the Tax Tribunal found that the value of product Y should be included in the valuation, as all rights to product Y were covered by the intra-group transfer. Excerpts “It was the judges’ view that the turnover growth for the budget period should be set in accordance with Company H’s own budgets prepared prior to the transfer. This was in accordance with TPG 2017 paragraphs 6.163 and 6.164 and SKM2020.30.LSR.” “With reference to OECD TPG section 6.178 on adjustment for tax consequences for the buyer and seller and SKM2020.30.LSR, the National Tax Tribunal ruled that the full value of the buyer’s tax asset should be added to the value of the intangible assets when valuing according to the DCF model.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

SA SACLA, which trades in protective clothing and footwear as well as small equipment, was subject of a tax audit covering the FY 2007, 2008 and 2009. In a proposed assessment issued in December 2011, the tax authorities increased its taxable income on the basis of Article 57 of the General Tax Code, by considering that SACLA, by selling, a set of brands/trademarks held by it for EUR 90,000 to a Luxembourg company, Involvex, which benefited from a preferential tax regime, had carried out an indirect transfer of profits in the form of a reduction in the selling price. In a ruling of February 2020, the Lyon Administrative Court of Appeal, after dismissing the plea of irregularity in the judgment, decided that an expert would carry out an valuation to determine whether the sale price of the trademarks corresponded to their value. The valuation should take into consideration an agreed exemption from payment of royalties for a period of five years granted by Involvex to SA SACLA. The expert report was filed on 8 April 2021 and after receiving the report SA SACLA asked the court to change the judgment by considering that the value of the transferred trademarks should be set at a sum of between 1.3 and 2.1 million euros and that penalties for deliberate breach should be discharged. By judgment of 19 August 2021 the court dismissed the request filed by SACLA and determined the value of the trademarks – in accordance with the expert report – to be 5,897,610 euros. “The value of the trademarks transferred by SACLA, initially declared by that company in the amount of EUR 90,000 excluding tax, was corrected by the tax authorities to EUR 11,288,000 excluding tax, and was then reduced by the judgment under appeal to EUR 8,733,348 excluding tax. It follows from the investigation, in particular from the expert’s report filed on 8 April 2021, that this value, taking into account the exemption from payment of royalties granted by the purchaser of the trademarks in the amount of 2,400,000 euros excluding tax and after taking into account corporate income tax, must be established at the sum of 5,897,610 euros excluding tax. The result is a difference between the agreed price and the value of the trade marks transferred in the amount of EUR 5 807 610 excluding tax, which constitutes an advantage for the purchaser. The applicant, who merely contests the amount of that advantage, does not invoke any interest or consideration of such a nature as to justify such an advantage. In these circumstances, the administration provides the proof that it is responsible for the existence of a reduction in the price of the sale of assets and the existence of an indirect transfer of profits abroad.” An appeal was then filed by SACLA with the Supreme Administrative Court Judgment of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court set aside articles 3 and 6 of the Judgment from the Administrative Court of Appeal. “Article 3: The judgment of the Lyon Administrative Court of 10 October 2017 is reversed insofar as it is contrary to the present judgment. … … Article 6: The remainder of the parties’ submissions is rejected.” Excerpts “2. In a judgment before the law of 13 February 2020, the Lyon Administrative Court of Appeal decided that, before ruling on the Sacla company’s request, an expert appraisal would be carried out in order to determine whether the sale price of the trademarks sold by that company corresponded to their value, taking into consideration, in particular, the waiver of payment of royalties for a period of five years granted by the purchasing company, Involvex, to the Sacla company. In order to fulfil the mission entrusted to them by the court, the expert and his assistant first considered four methods, then abandoned the method of comparables and the method of capitalisation of royalties, and finally retained only two methods, the method of historical costs and the method of discounting future flows, from which they derived a weighted average. It follows from the statements in the judgment under appeal that the court, after considering that the historical cost method did not allow the effect of corporation tax to be taken into account with any certainty and led to a valuation almost eight times lower than the discounted cash flow method, rejected the former method and adopted only the latter and considered that there was no need to carry out a weighting, since, in its view, the discounted cash flow method proved to be the most accurate. (3) It follows from the statements in the judgment under appeal that the court, after fixing the value of the trade marks transferred by Sacla at EUR 8 733 348 exclusive of tax, an amount also retained by the administrative court, intended to apply the discount recommended by the expert report of 7 April 2021 in order to take account of the exemption from payment of royalties granted for five years by the purchaser of the trade marks. In fixing the amount of that discount at EUR 2 400 000 exclusive of tax, whereas the expert report which it intended to apply estimated it, admittedly, at that amount in absolute terms, but by applying a rate of 37% to a value of the trade marks transferred estimated at EUR 6 500 000, the Court distorted that expert report and gave insufficient reasons for its judgment. (4) It follows from the foregoing that, without needing to rule on the other grounds of appeal, Articles 3 to 6 of the contested judgment should be set aside and, in the circumstances of the case, the State should be ordered to pay the sum of EUR 3 000 to Coverguards Sales under Article L. 761-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

“XZ Insurance SA” is the parent company in a group engaged in insurance activities in its various branches, both life and non-life, finance, investment property and services. An audit was conducted for FY 2013-2016 and in 2020 an assessment was issued in relation to both controlled transactions and other transactions. Among outher issued the tax authorities determined that “XZ Insurance SA” did not receive any royalty income from the use of the XZ trademark by to other entities of the group, both domestic and foreign. In the assessment the tax authorities determined the arm’s length royalty percentage for use of the trademarks to be on average ~0,5%. “In order to estimate the market royalty, the first aspect to be studied is the existence of an internal comparable or comparable trademark assignment contracts. And we have already stated that the absence of valid internal and external comparables has led us to resort to the use of other generally accepted valuation methods and techniques. In this respect, it should be noted that this situation is frequent when valuing transactions related to intangibles, and the Guidelines have expressly echoed this situation (in particular, in paragraphs 6.138, 6.153, 6.156, 6.157 and 6.162, which are transcribed in section 6.2 of this Report).” A complaint was filed by “XZ Insurance SA” Judgment of the TEAC The TEAC dismissed the complaint of “XZ Insurance SA” and upheld the tax assessment. Excerpts from the decision concerning the assessment of income for use of the trademarks by other group companies “On this issue, it is worth pointing out an idea that the complainant uses recurrently in its written submissions. The complainant considers that if there is no growth in the number of policies and premiums, it should not be argued that the use of the XZ brand generates a profit in the subsidiaries. However, as the Inspectorate has already replied, it is not possible to identify the increase in the profit of the brand with the increase in premiums, nor that the growth, in certain countries, of the entities is exclusively due to the value of the brand. Logically, increases and decreases in premiums are due to multiple factors, including the disposable income of the inhabitants of each country, tax regulations, civil liability legislation, among others, and we cannot share the complainant’s view that the brand does not generate a profit in the event of a decrease in premiums in the market. Furthermore, insofar as the enforceability of the royalty is conditioned by the fact that the assignment produces a profit for the company using the brand, there is greater evidence as to the usefulness of the brand in the main markets in which the group operates and in which it is most relevant: Spain, COUNTRY_1, Latin American countries, COUNTRY_2, COUNTRY_3, COUNTRY_4 and COUNTRY_5. Finally, one aspect that draws the attention of this TEAC is the contrast between what the complainant demands that the administration should do and the attitude of the administration in the inspection procedure. On the one hand, it demands that the administration carry out a detailed analysis of the valuation of the profit generated by the trademark for the group, but, on the other hand, there is a total lack of contribution on the part of the entity in providing specific information on the valuation of the trademark that could facilitate the task it demands of the administration. In fact, this information was requested by the Inspectorate, to which it replied that “there are no studies available on the value or awareness and relevance of the XZ brand in the years under inspection” (…) “It follows from the above that it has not been proven that the different entities of the group made direct contributions or contributions that would determine that, effectively, the economic ownership of the trademark should be shared. Therefore, this TEAC must consider, given the existing evidence, that both the legal and economic ownership of the trademark corresponds to the entity XZ ESPAÑA. In short, it is clear from the facts set out above that certain entities of the group used, and use, for the marketing of their services and products, a relevant and internationally established trademark, the “XZ” trademark, which gives them a prestige in the market that directly and undoubtedly has an impact on their sales figures, with the consequent increase in their economic profit. It is clear from the above that there was, in the years audited, a transfer of use of an established, international brand, valued by independent third parties (according to the ONFI report, according to …, between … and …. million euros in the years under review) and maintained from a maintenance point of view (relevant advertising and promotional expenses). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude, as does the Inspectorate, that, in a transaction of this type – the assignment of the “XZ” trademark – carried out at arm’s length, a payment for the use of the intangible asset would have been made to its owner, without prejudice to the fact that the value assigned to the assignment of use of the aforementioned trademark may be disputed; but what seems clear, and this is what the TEAC states, is that it is an intangible asset whose assignment of use has value. In conclusion, the TEAC considers that the entity owning the trademark (XZ SPAIN) had an intangible asset and transferred its use, for which it should receive income; by transferring the use of the asset to group entities, both domiciled in Spain and abroad, it is appropriate to calculate that income for XZ SPAIN by applying the regime for related-party transactions.” (…) “In section 6 of the report, as we have already analysed, ONFI attempts to find external comparables, insofar as there are no internal comparables within the group, reaching the conclusion that they cannot be identified in the market analysed. Consequently, it proceeds to estimate the royalty that XZ Spain should receive, by applying other methodologies that allow an approximation to the arm’s length price, based ...

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

Amazon is an online retailer that sells products through Amazon.com and related websites. Amazon also sells third-party products for which it receives a commissions. In a series of transactions  in 2005 and 2006, Amazon US transferred intangibles to Amazon Europe, a newly established European HQ placed in Luxembourg. A Cost Sharing Arrangement (“CSA”), whereby Amazon US and Amazon Europe agreed to share costs of further research, development, and marketing in proportion to the benefits A License Agreement, whereby Amazon US granted Amazon Europe the right to Amazon US’s Technology IP An Assignment Agreement, whereby Amazon US granted Amazon Europe the right to Amazon US’s Marketing IP and Customer Lists. For these transfers Amazon Europe was required to make an upfront buy-in payment and annual payments according to the cost sharing arrangement for ongoing developments of the intangibles. In the valuation, Amazon had considered the intangibles to have a lifetime of 6 to 20 years. On that basis, the buy-in payment for pre-existing intangibles had been set to $254.5 million. The IRS disagreed with the valuation and calculated a buy-in payment of $3.5 billion, by applying a discounted cash-flow methodology to the expected cash flows from the European business. The IRS took the position, that the intangibles transferred to Amazon Europe had an indefinite useful life and had to be valued as integrated components of an ongoing business rather than separate assets. The case brought before the US Tax Court HAD two issues had to be decided: Amazon Europe’s buy-in payment with respect to the intangibles transferred; and The pool of cost, on which Amazon Europe ongoing cost sharing payments were to be calculated. The Courts decision on Amazon Europe’s buy-in payment IRS’s position of “indefinite useful life” in the valuation of the intangibles and the buy in payment was rejected by the court, and the comparable uncontrolled transaction (“CUT”) method applied by Amazon – after appropriate upward adjustments – was found to be the best method. The Courts decision on Cost Share Payments The Court found that Amazon’s method for allocating intangible development costs, after adjustments, was reasonable. US CSA regulations pre- and post 2009  US CSA regs in effect for 2005-2006 refer to the definition of intangibles set forth in section 1.482-4(b), Income Tax Regs. Here intangibles are defined to include five enumerated categories of assets, each of which has “substantial value independent of the services of any individual.” These include patents, inventions, copyrights, know-how, trademarks, trade names, and 20 other specified intangibles. The definition of intangibles in the pre 2009 CSA regs did not include value of workforce in place, going concern value, goodwill, and growth options, corporate resources or opportunities. In 2009 new CSA regs were introduced in the US where the concept of “platform contribution transaction” (PCT) applies. According to the new regs. there are no limit on the type of intangibles that must be compensated under a cost sharing arrangement. But these new US CSA regulations did not apply to the years 2005 – 2006 in the Amazon case. See also the US vs. Veritas case from 2009. 2019 UPDATE The 2017 decision of the Tax Court has later been appealed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ...

A Ltd, which belonged to the Norwegian X Group, owned the entire share capital of B Ltd and had on 18.5.2004 sold it to a Norwegian company in the same group. The Norwegian company had the same day transferred the shares back on to A Ltd. C ASA had also been transferred shares in other companies belonging to the X group. C ASA was listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange in June 2004. Following the transaction with the subsidiary the Tax Office had raised A Ltd’s income for 2004 with 62,017,440 euros on the grounds that the price used in the transaction were considered below the shares’ market value. Further, a tax increase of EUR 620 000 had been applied. A Ltd stated that the purchase price for the shares of B Ltd had been determined on the basis of the company’s net present value, calculated according to a calculation of the present value of cash flows in the B Ab. The calculation was made by an outside expert. The purchase price had been calculated using “media kalkyl” that led to a lower value than the optional price determination calculations, which were based on high and low growth. Media kalkyl differed from other calculations in respect of certain variables that significantly affected the final outcome. For several of the variables used a description of how they were derived from B Ltd’s budget was missing, from historical data, data for comparison companies or other data. Variables not declared were also used in the calculation by the external expert, which was based on factor analysis and which was presented to support the calculations. The Supreme Administrative Court noted that although the cash flow calculations in principle can be considered to be an acceptable way to determine the market price of shares in companies not listed on the stock exchange, the estimates presented by the company could not be considered a reliable account of the price that would have been used in a transfer between independent parties. Because any comparison price that would have been based on events that could be equated with those at issue in this case were not available, and the yield based value of B Ltd had been established in a reliable manner, and since B Ltd’s assets under the Company’s balance had essentially consisted of financial assets, the fair value of B Ltd’s for taxation considered B Ltd’s net asset value. Using the net asset value was not wrong either for the reason that C ASA immediately after the listing of company had a market value lower than the net asset value. Nor were the fact that C ASA at the time of listing of the company had a 20 percent minority stake, sufficient to show that the purchase price corresponded to the market price. Consequently, the Company’s income in the taxation could be relevant amounts. With regard to the measures with which the company had tried to clarify the current value and that the issue concerned the appeal could be considered to make room for interpretation, the Supreme Administrative Court, removed the tax increase imposed in connection with the taxation. Fiscal year 2004 The law on the taxation procedure (1558/1995) 31, 32 and 57 § Click here for other translation ...

In connection with a restructuring, Ferring Sweden (a Scandinavian pharmaceutical) had transferred intangible assets to a group company in Switzerland. Among the assets transferred was an exclusive worldwide license to manufacture and sell a drug and a number of ongoing R&D projects. The question in the case was whether the price agreed between the Group companies was consistent with the arm’s length principle. Ferring’s position was that the price was consistent with the arm’s length principle, while the Swedish Tax Agency believed that an arm’s-length price was significantly higher. In support of its pricing, the company had submitted a valuation made by the audit company A, where the value of Ferring after the transfer (the residual company) was compared with the value of the company if it had continued to operate as a full-fledged company (the original company). These values ​​were determined through a present value calculation of the future cash flows in each unit. The difference in value was considered to correspond to the value of the intangible assets transferred. The Swedish Tax Agency had made its own assessment of a market-based remuneration for the license only to manufacture and sell the drug. In this valuation, the present value of the future cash flows was calculated according to what the sale of the drug could be expected to generate, ie the income that the Swedish company would lose after the transfer of the license. The value obtained exceeded the price that the Group companies had agreed on for all intangible assets. The Swedish Tax Agency had also made a calculation regarding the ongoing R&D projects. In this calculation, the present value of the estimated costs of R&D projects was compared with the present value of the future revenues that these projects could be expected to lead to. In support of the assessment, the Swedish Tax Agency also relied on a valuation made by the audit firm B, which was made on behalf of the Swedish Tax Agency. Like the audit firm A, the accounting firm B calculated the value of the transferred assets by comparing the value of the parent company with the value of the residual company. However, Audit Company B came to a significantly higher value in its valuation than Audit Company A did. The Court of Appeal considered that clearly overwhelming reasons indicated that the audit firm B’s valuation provided a reasonable arm’s length value. This conclusion was reinforced by the Swedish Tax Agency’s evaluation of the license to manufacture and sell the drug, by the Swedish Tax Agency’s calculation of R&D projects, and by an evaluation of the outcome of the respective auditing companies’ values ​​by using multiples. The Court of Appeal also took into account the size of the amounts that the Swedish company invested in R&D in the years prior to the transfer. The Court found that in the absence of proportionality and in the absence of explanations, the relationship between the value of intangible assets and the sums invested in developing them may give an indication that the price is not market-based. The Court of Appeal also held that the information contained in the case was insufficient to explain the seemingly unreasonable relationship between what had been invested in R&D up until the transfer and the price that was then determined at the transfer of assets, which included the R&D projects. All in all, the court considered that the Swedish Tax Agency had sufficiently proved that the market price of the assets transferred between the Group companies exceeded the agreed price, at least with the increase decided by the Swedish Tax Agency. According to the court, the Swedish Tax Agency had therefore had grounds for taxing Ferring in the manner that had taken place. Click here for translation ...