Reliability of adjustment for differences in volume. (i) FS manufactures product XX and sells that product to its parent corporation, P. FS also sells product XX to uncontrolled taxpayers at a price of $100 per unit. Except for the volume of each transaction, the sales to P and to uncontrolled taxpayers take place under substantially the same economic conditions and contractual terms. In uncontrolled transactions, FS offers a 2% discount for quantities of 20 per order, and a 5% discount for quantities of 100 per order. If P purchases product XX in quantities of 60 per order, in the absence of other reliable information, it may reasonably be concluded that the arm’s length price to P would be $100, less a discount of 3.5%. (ii) If P purchases product XX in quantities of 1,000 per order, a reliable estimate of the appropriate volume discount must be based on proper economic or statistical analysis, not necessarily a linear extrapolation from the 2% and 5% catalog discounts applicable to sales of 20 and 100 units, respectively ...

Differences in volume. USP, a United States agricultural exporter, regularly buys transportation services from FSub, its foreign subsidiary, to ship its products from the United States to overseas markets. Although FSub occasionally provides transportation services to URA, an unrelated domestic corporation, URA accounts for only 10% of the gross revenues of FSub, and the remaining 90% of FSub’s gross revenues are attributable to FSub’s transactions with USP. In determining the degree of comparability between FSub’s uncontrolled transaction with URA and its controlled transaction with USP, the difference in volumes involved in the two transactions and the regularity with which these services are provided must be taken into account if such difference would have a material effect on the price charged. Inability to make reliable adjustments for these differences would affect the reliability of the results derived from the uncontrolled transaction as a measure of the arm’s length result ...

On the other hand, internal comparables are not always more reliable and it is not the case that any transaction between a taxpayer and an independent party can be regarded as a reliable comparable for controlled transactions carried on by the same taxpayer. Internal comparables where they exist must satisfy the five comparability factors in the same way as external comparables, see paragraphs 1.33-1.138. Guidance on comparability adjustments also applies to internal comparables, see paragraphs 3.47-3.54. Assume for instance that a taxpayer manufactures a particular product, sells a significant volume thereof to its foreign associated retailer and a marginal volume of the same product to an independent party. In such a case, the difference in volumes is likely to materially affect the comparability of the two transactions. If it is not possible to make a reasonably accurate adjustment to eliminate the effects of such difference, the transaction between the taxpayer and its independent customer is unlikely to be a reliable comparable ...

The Mahou (SAN MIGUEL) S.A Group is active in brewing and sale of beers. Penibética de cervezas y bebidas SL and Andaluza de cervezas y bebidas SL are wholly owned by Cervezas Alhambra SL, which again is owned by MAHOU (SAN MIGUEL) S.A. The main activity of Cervezas Alhambra SL is the distribution and marketing under its own brands of the beer produced by its subsidiaries; that of Penibética de Cervezas y Bebidas SL is the production of beers which, without its own brand, are mainly distributed and marketed by Alhambra and the core activity of Andaluza de Cervezas y Bebidas S.L. is the manufacture of beers which, without its own brand, are distributed and marketed by Alhambra. In 2014, the tax authorities issued two tax assessments to the group: one in relation to FY 2008 and 2009, in the amount of €12,303,526.50 an another in relation to FY 2010, 2011, in the amount of €4,951,701.39. Among the issues raised in these assessments was transfer pricing. The CUP method used by the company was rejected by the tax authorities who instead applied the TNMM method. The tax authorities considered that the pricing of the sales made by Penibética de Cervezas y Bebidas S.L and Andaluza de Cervezas y Bebidas S.L to Cervezas Alhambra SL had been below market price, which could be due to fiscal reasons as the higher taxable income in Cervezas Alhambra SL could be offset by losses from previous years. Dissatisfied with the tax assessment Mahou S.A. filed a complaint which resulted in a decision in favour of the tax authorities. This decision was then appealed to the Audiencia Nacional. Judgement of the Court The National Court dismissed the appeal of Mahou in regards of transfer pricing and upheld the assessment of the tax authorities. Excerpts “As mentioned above, Cervezas Alhambra SL had significant BINs pending offsetting; they were generated in 1996 and subsequent years and at the start of the verification period amounted to 47,485,324.63 euros. And in the years 2010 and 2011 the declared tax bases of Cervezas Alhambra SL amounted to 8,953,184.43 euros and 8,213,717.51 euros. Tax Group 612/09, in which the related parties are taxed, has made the following offsets of tax losses from Cervezas Alhambra SL in years prior to its inclusion in the consolidated group: 2,884,427.23 euros (year of generation: 1996) 6,068,757.20 euros (year of generation. 1997) 2011: 6,781,618.18 euros (year of generation: 1997). Well, in the settlement, as a result of applying the TNMM to the transactions between related parties, the declared operating results are readjusted, increasing the results and bases declared by Penibética de Cervezas y Bebidas SL and Andaluza de Cervezas y Bebidas S.L in 2010 by €1,314,040 and €1,556,860 respectively, and correspondingly reducing the operating result and taxable base of Cervezas Alhambra SL in 2010 by €2,870,900. And here the problem lies in determining which is the (most appropriate) method for establishing the price of related-party transactions. Of the methods regulated in Article 16.4 TRLIS, the dichotomous positions in conflict here are, on the one hand, the CUP method, maintained by the appellant, and, on the other, the TNMM method applied by the Inspectorate. First of all, in the financial year prior to 2010, the TNMM was used to determine the transfer prices between related parties, although it is fair to recognise that in that year the transactions between Cervezas Alhambra and its subsidiaries were not included, since the fiscal group 612/09 had its first financial year in 2010. Be that as it may, Mahou, S.A. provided the Inspectorate with a series of transfer pricing reports of the companies of the group prior to the financial year 2010 carried out by Ernst & Young (manufacture of Cervezas Alhambra S.L. by Mahou S.A. and with San Miguel, Penibética de Cervezas y Bebidas S.L. with San Miguel, Cervezas Anaga S.A. with Mahou and San Miguel, purchase of Mahou branded beers and other brands manufactured by San Miguel and Cervezas Anaga and sale of beers manufactured by Mahou under the San Miguel brand to San Miguel and purchase of own branded beers manufactured by related entities and other brands manufactured by San Miguel and Cervezas Anaga and sale of own branded beers to related entities and sale of Mahou branded goods manufactured by Mahou S. A.) and in all of them the sale of Mahou branded goods manufactured by Mahou S. A. to San Miguel and sale of Mahou branded goods to San Miguel and sale of Mahou branded goods manufactured by San Miguel and Cervezas Anaga S.A. to San Miguel. A.) and in all of them the TNMM was used as it was considered the most appropriate to assess whether the brewing activities are in line with the arm’s length principle, using as an indicator of profitability the operating margin on total costs, selecting the brewing companies as the tested party. As regards the comparables used, Alhambra and Penibética use the AMADEUS and SABI databases, selecting five comparable European brewing companies, using data for 2006, 2007 and 2008. Well, even hypothetically admitting that the use of the TNMM in previous years cannot condition the valuation of the transactions between Cervezas Alhambra and its subsidiaries because in those years they were not included and therefore were not analysed in the reports, we must agree with the Inspectorate that with the information available this is the methodology that allows the transfer prices of brewing operations to be assessed, while the use of the CUP method is unacceptable. In fact, in the report A-02 (in section A.3.d) as well as in the non-conformity report (3.3 d/) and in section 4 of the pricing report of the operations of Penibética, Andaluza and Alhambra, the reasons for opting for this method are sufficiently justified, having used to select the comparable samples those that meet the requirements of activity and independence in accordance with the OECD guidelines obtained from the internationally accredited AMADEUS database. At the same time, the Inspectorate rejects the CUP method in ...

On the other hand, internal comparables are not always more reliable and it is not the case that any transaction between a taxpayer and an independent party can be regarded as a reliable comparable for controlled transactions carried on by the same taxpayer. Internal comparables where they exist must satisfy the five comparability factors in the same way as external comparables, see paragraphs 1.33-1.118. Guidance on comparability adjustments also applies to internal comparables, see paragraphs 3.47-3.54. Assume for instance that a taxpayer manufactures a particular product, sells a significant volume thereof to its foreign associated retailer and a marginal volume of the same product to an independent party. In such a case, the difference in volumes is likely to materially affect the comparability of the two transactions. If it is not possible to make a reasonably accurate adjustment to eliminate the effects of such difference, the transaction between the taxpayer and its independent customer is unlikely to be a reliable comparable ...

Distribuidora Salvadorena de Petroleo S.A. DE C.V. (DSP), is active in “the wholesale and retail marketing of oil, derivatives, gas, lubricants, additives and energy in general. Following an audit the tax authorities issued an assessment regarding sale of oil. According to the authorities the prices determined by DSP for oil sold to a related party – Nejapa Power Company L.L.C. – had not been at arm’s length. An appeal was filed by the DSP. Judgement of the Supreme Court The court set aside the assessment and decided in favour of DSP. “The method of estimated, indexed or presumptive base is constructed through the use of indications, its application becomes indispensable when the Tax Administration does not have the direct means to provide it with certain data, the failure to file returns or those filed by the taxpayers do not allow the knowledge of the data necessary for the complete estimation of the taxable bases or income, or when the taxpayers themselves offer resistance, excuses or refusals in the face of the audit action ordered against them, or substantially fail to comply with their accounting obligations, or when the background information provided lacks probative value. etc. In the above cases, although not the only ones, the Tax Administration is empowered to proceed to determine the tax on the basis of an estimated or indicative basis known as “presumptive basis”, using for this purpose the verification of indications, otherwise the Treasury would be circumvented by tax evaders. The important thing is that in the application of this method, the tax office must gather a series of facts or circumstances in which their normal link or connection with those foreseen by the Law as the material budget of the tax, allow it to infer in the investigated case the existence and amount of the obligation. The purpose of the Law is to establish the real value of the transaction, at no time to establish non-existent income, therefore, by attempting to create non-existent income by applying a legal provision referring to market prices, which constitute an element of the index base, it creates an inaccuracy, since it is not in line with reality. Hence, the actions of the Directorate General of Internal Taxes are unlawful, since it unjustifiably applied the method of the estimated, indexed or presumed base for the unofficial tax assessment made on the plaintiff company, which according to the parameters established by the tax legislation was not the corresponding one.” “In accordance with the foregoing considerations, this Chamber concludes that the actions of the Directorate General of Internal Taxes are illegal, having used both the mixed base and the estimated, indexed or presumed base for the liquidation of the Income Tax of the company”. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...