Eni Norge AS was a wholly owned subsidiary of Eni International B.V., a Dutch company. Both companies were part of the Eni Group, in which the Italian company Eni S.p.A was the HQ. Eni Norway had deducted costs related to the purchase of “technical services” from Eni S.p.A. Following an audit, the tax authorities reduced these deductions pursuant to section 13-1 of the Taxation Act (arm’s length provision). This meant that Eni Norway’s income was increased by NOK 32,673,457 in FY 2015 and NOK 16,752,728 in FY 2016. The tax assessment issued by the tax authorities was later confirmed by a decision of the Petroleum Tax Appeal Board. The Appeals Board considered that there were price deviations between the intra-group hourly rates for technical services and the external hourly rates. The price deviations could be due to errors in the cost base and/or a lack of arm’s length in the distribution of costs. There was thus a discretionary right pursuant to section 13-1, first paragraph, of the Tax Act. Eni Norge A/S applied to the District Court for a review of the decision refering to a previous judgement from the Norwegian Supreme Court HR-2020-1130-A (the Shell R&D judgement). Judgement of the District Court The court did not find that the decision of the Appeals Board was based on incorrect facts or application of the law and upheld the decision. Excerpts “The Supreme Court held that the correct approach was to base the assessment on what was actually the cost burden for Norske Shell. Costs covered by others should not be included (paragraph 57). The Court cannot see that this judgement provides guidance for our case, because it concerns a different fact. The Supreme Court assumed that it concerned a case with an agreed cost contribution scheme: 51-52: (51) In the legislative proposal in connection with the addition of section 13-1 fourth paragraph of the Tax Act in 2007, Proposition No. 62 (2006-2007), the Ministry reviewed the content of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines. Section 5.9 of the proposal provides an account of the guidelines relating to cost contribution arrangements (CCA) – referred to in the guidelines as Cost Contribution Arrangements (CCA). The content of such arrangements is described as follows: “A CCA is a contractual framework for sharing the costs and risks associated with the development, production or acquisition of assets, services or rights. The participants seek to obtain an expected benefit through their contributions to the KBO. Under a KBO, each participant will have the right to utilise its interests in the KBO as the actual owner of these, and the participants will thus not be liable to pay royalties or other remuneration to any other party for the utilisation of their interests in the arrangement. The most common KBOs are arrangements for joint development of intangible assets, but KBOs are also established for other purposes.” In my view, it is in good accordance with the arm’s length principle that follows from Section 13-1 of the Tax Act and the OECD Guidelines, when the Complaints Board in its decision has assumed that the relationship between Norske Shell and the group companies involves a cost-sharing arrangement. In this case, there is no transfer of assets for a consideration to be determined on the basis of the commercial principles that would apply to an ordinary sale of goods, services or rights.” The situation in our case concerns a case that the Supreme Court has limited itself to, namely the purchase of services between mother and daughter, which must be considered a transfer of assets for consideration. An ordinary sale has taken place. The service agreement and the individual sales do not involve a cost contribution scheme. Nor did the agreement state that revenues were to be deducted in a cost sharing arrangement, as was the situation in the Shell R&D judgement. The fact that the accounting agreement contains provisions on cost allocation between the licence partners does not change the facts. It concerns the sale of services between two independent parties, Eni S.p.A and Eni Norge. In the assessment, the income shall be determined as if the community of interest had not existed, cf. section 13-1, third paragraph, of the Tax Act. The Court agrees with the reasoning of the majority of the Appeals Board: “In the assessment, the income shall be determined as if the community of interest had not existed, cf. section 13-1 third paragraph of the Tax Act. § Section 13-1, third paragraph. If independent parties would have viewed the transactions in context, it is natural to do so also in controlled transactions. An independent service provider in a similar arrangement would naturally demand payment for all the services provided, regardless of whether the service recipient is subsequently re-invoiced or reimbursed for the costs of some of the services by others. An independent service recipient in such an arrangement would also accept to pay for all the services, but no more than what similar services would cost in the open market. This must also apply to the services that Eni Norge can charge the licence partners under the accounting agreement.” Without it being of decisive importance for the Court’s assessment, the Plaintiff has not been as clear in the administrative proceedings that there is a pure passing on of the service costs to the licence partners as it was during the main hearing. The Court refers to this description by the majority of the Board of Appeal of the charge: (…) As the Court understands the Plaintiff’s response during the proceedings, it confirms that there is not full correspondence between the costs from the purchase of the service from Eni S.p.A and the onward charge. The Plaintiff has at best been very unclear on this point. This supports the Court’s assessment that the transactions must be assessed separately. As stated, this is not decisive for the Court’s conclusion. The Court has no need to problematise the principle that it can only rely on the facts presented by the ...

Two issues were adressed in this case – transfer pricing and withholding taxes. The transfer pricing issue concerned whether the Danish tax authorities (SKAT) had been entitled to issue an assessment on controlled transactions made between “Soy A/S” and a flow-through company in the group located in a low tax jurisdiction. The withholding tax issue concerned whether the 13 transfers actually constituted taxable dividends under section 31, D of the Danish Corporation Tax Act, which “Soy A/S” was subsequently liable for not having withheld tax at source, cf. section 69(1) of the Danish Withholding Tax Act. Judgement of the High Court In regards of the transfer pricing issue, the High Court found that the company’s TP documentation was subject to a number of deficiencies which meant that the documentation did not provide the tax authorities with a sufficient basis for assessing whether the transactions were made in accordance with the arm’s length principle. The High Court emphasised, among other things, that the documentation did not sufficiently describe how prices and terms had actually been determined. The High Court also emphasised that there had only been a very general description and very sparse information about the sister company’s business activities, contractual terms and financial circumstances, including no information about to whom and at what prices the goods from the sister company were resold. SKAT was therefore entitled to make a discretionary assessment of the company’s taxable income. The High Court found no basis to set aside SKAT’s estimate, as the company had neither demonstrated that the estimate was exercised on an erroneous basis nor led to a manifestly unreasonable result. The High Court emphasised, among other things, the extent and nature of the deficiencies in the information basis and the fact that SKAT had unsuccessfully attempted to obtain additional information for use in the tax assessment. As regards the arm’s length interval used by SKAT, the High Court found, after an overall assessment, that SKAT had been entitled to use the interquartile range and adjusted the price to the third quartile. The High Court stated that the company had a central and value-creating function in the group, and that the comparability analysis was based on “limited risk distributors”, which were not directly comparable with the company. The High Court also found that the foreign sister company had to be considered a pure flow-through company that had no independent business justification in the group. In this connection, the High Court stated that there had been changing information about the sister company’s employees and that there was no documentation that there had been employees to carry out the alleged activities in the company. The analyses prepared after the tax assessment, including the capital adjustment test and the berry ratio analysis, as well as the other factors invoked by the company could not lead to a different assessment. In regards of the withholding tax issue the High Court found that the foreign sister company could only be considered to have acted as a flow-through company that did not bear any risk with the commodity trade. The High Court emphasised, among other things, that no hedging contracts had been presented. In light of the other circumstances of the case, the High Court found that the 13 transfers, which did not take place until 2010, could not be considered to have been made pursuant to the aforementioned agency agreement. The High Court stated that in the situation at hand, the company had a heightened burden of proof that there was no basis for considering the payments as subsidies/dividends with derived liability for withholding tax. The High Court found that the Danish company had not met this burden of proof through the testimony of the company’s former CEO and auditor. Finally, the High Court found that the Danish company was aware of all the circumstances surrounding the transfers to the foreign sister company in Y1 country, and that the transfers were very significant without documentation. On this basis, the High Court found that the Danish company had acted negligently and was therefore liable for the missing withholding tax, cf. section 69(1) of the current Withholding Tax Act, cf. section 65(1). Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

ST Dupont is a French luxury manufacturer of lighters, pens and leather goods. It is majority-owned by the Dutch company D&D International, which is wholly-owned by Broad Gain Investments Ltd, based in Hong Kong. ST Dupont is the sole shareholder of the distribution subsidiaries located abroad, in particular ST Dupont Marketing, based in Hong Kong. Following an audit, an adjustment was issued where the tax administration considered that the prices at which ST Dupont sold its products to ST Dupont Marketing (Hong Kong) were lower than the arm’s length prices. “The investigation revealed that the administration found that ST Dupont was making significant and persistent losses, with an operating loss of between EUR 7,260,086 and EUR 32,408,032 for the financial years from 2003 to 2009. It also noted that its marketing subsidiary in Hong Kong, ST Dupont Marketing, in which it held the entire capital, was making a profit, with results ranging from EUR 920,739 to EUR 3,828,051 for the same years.” Applying a CUP method the tax administration corrected the losses declared by ST Dupont in terms of corporation tax for the financial years ending in 2009, 2010 and 2011. Not satisfied with the adjustment ST Dupont filed an appeal with the Paris administrative Court where parts of the tax assessment in a decision issued in 2019 were set aside by the court (royalty payments and resulting adjustments to loss carry forward) An appeal was then filed with the CAA of Paris, where in April 2022 the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance. Finally an appeal was filed with the Conseil d’État. Judgement of the Conseil d’État The Conseil d’État dismissed the appeal of ST Dupont and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal. Excerpt “ 15. It is clear from the documents in the file submitted to the lower courts that, in order to assess whether the prices at which ST Dupont sold its finished products to its distribution subsidiary ST Dupont Marketing constituted a transfer of profits abroad, it compared them to the prices at which the same products were sold to the independent South Korean company SJ Duko Co and to a network of duty-free sellers in South-East Asia. It considered that this comparison revealed the existence of an advantage granted by ST Dupont to its subsidiary, which it reintegrated into the parent company’s profits. However, in its response to the taxpayer’s comments, this adjustment was reduced by a “reduction” in the arm’s length prices used by the tax authorities, which consisted of aligning the margin on transactions with duty free shops with the margin on sales to SJ Duko, and then, in accordance with the opinion issued by the departmental commission for direct taxes and turnover taxes, by a further reduction of 50% of the amounts reintegrated into the company’s results. 16. In the first place, the company criticised the method used by the tax authorities on the grounds that ST Dupont Marketing and the Korean company SJ Duko Co were not comparable, since the former operated as a wholesaler and retailer while the latter only operated as a wholesaler. In rejecting this criticism on the grounds, firstly, that SJ Duko’s wholesale activity had been supplemented by that of exclusive sales agent and retailer and, secondly, that the applicant had not provided any evidence making it possible to assess the nature and cost of the differences in functions between ST Dupont Marketing and SJ Duko Co, taking into account in particular the assets used and the risks borne, and consequently to assess the existence, if any, of differences such that they would render the comparison irrelevant if they could not be appropriately corrected, the Court did not err in law. Although the company also argued that the differences in the functions performed by ST Dupont and the duty free shops prevented the duty free shops from being considered comparable, this criticism is new in the appeal and is therefore inoperative. 17. Secondly, in order to dismiss the criticism of the administration’s method based on the failure to take account of the difference in the geographical markets in which ST Dupont Marketing and SJ Duko Co operated, respectively, the Court was able, without committing an error of law, by disregarding the rules governing the allocation of the burden of proof or distorting the documents in the file submitted to it, to rely on the fact that ST Dupont’s transfer pricing documentation itself specified that retail prices were set uniformly by continental zone. 18. Thirdly, the Court noted, in a sovereign assessment not vitiated by distortion, on the one hand, that it did not follow either from the tables attached to the rectification proposal, or from the method of determining the selling prices of finished products to the various Asian subsidiaries, that the prices charged by ST Dupont to its customers depended on the quantities sold and, secondly, that the document produced by ST Dupont showing an overall statistical correlation between volume sold and unit price, which did not guarantee that the products compared were homogeneous, did not make it possible to establish this either. In relying on these factors to dismiss the company’s criticism based on the difference in the volume of transactions with ST Dupont Marketing and SJ Duko Co respectively, the Court did not err in law. 19. Fourthly, although the company criticises the grounds of the judgment in which the Court rejected its argument that the alignment of the mark-up applied to sales to duty-free shops with that applied to sales to SJ Duko Co meant that only one term of comparison was used, it is clear from other statements in the judgment, not criticised by the appeal, that the court also based itself on the fact that the tax authorities had, as an alternative, in their response to the taxpayer’s observations, applied a 27% reduction to the prices granted to duty-free shops in order to take account of the fact that these were ...

A was the sole owner of “C-Advisory Business ApS” established in Denmark in 2003. The company advised and represented taxpayers in cases related to tax deductions for land improvements to immovable property. A was also the sole owner of a company established in Dubai in 2006. The Dubai company provided services for “C-Advisory Business ApS” in Denmark and a total of DKK 78,785,549 was expensed in FY 2006-2010 relating to the purchase of these services. The Danish tax authorities considered that the payments had not been at arm’s length and reduced the service fees to the Dubai company to DKK 20 million for the income years in question. This resulted in additional taxable income of “C-Advisory Business ApS” in a total amount of DKK 58,5 million. Following an unsuccessful complaint to the Tax Tribunal, “C-Advisory Business ApS” filed an appeal with the regional court where a judgement was issued in June 2021. The Regional Court found, that the tax authorities had been entitled to exercise discretion over the pricing of the controlled transactions as the transactions had not been priced at arm’s length and the transfer pricing documentation did not provide the tax authorities with a sufficient basis for assessing whether the arm’s length principle had been complied with. An appeal was then filed by “C-Advisory Business ApS” with the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Regional Court and found in favour of the tax authorities. The Court considered that the tax authorities had been entitled to exercise discretion in relation to pricing of the controlled transactions at issue and that there were no grounds for setting aside the tax assessment “(…) Whether the tax authorities were entitled to exercise a discretion in respect of the controlled transactions It is accepted, for the reasons given by the Court, that the tax authorities have established that the transfer pricing documentation is so deficient that it did not provide the tax authorities with a sufficient basis for assessing whether the arm’s length principle was complied with. As stated by the Regional Court, in assessing whether the pricing between C and the Dubai company was at arm’s length, it must be borne in mind, inter alia, that it followed from the Service Agreement concluded and the allonge thereto that in 2006-07 the Dubai company received a management fee consisting of a fixed base fee of DKK 800,000 and a profit-based fee of 50-70% of C’s profits, and that in 2008-10 the Dubai company received a base fee with full cost recovery plus the same profit-based fee. The Supreme Court finds, as did the Regional Court, that it has been established that C would not have entered into an agreement on those terms with an independent company. The Supreme Court therefore holds that the tax authorities were entitled to set aside C’s pricing and instead exercise discretion in relation to the controlled transactions in order to determine what C would have paid to the Dubai company for the purchase of the services if they had been independent contracting parties. Whether there is a basis to set aside the estimate SKAT’s estimate of C’s payments for the services provided by the Dubai company is based on the TNM method as a pricing method. In applying the TNM method, SKAT calculated the Dubai company’s transfer prices for the provision of services to C by carrying out a benchmark analysis of 25 law firms and audit firms, using return on total cost (RoTC) as a profit level indicator. RoTC is calculated by dividing the firms’ profits (earnings before interest and tax) by their costs (total costs). The benchmark analysis showed a market RoTC with a median of 6.72% and on this basis the tax authorities have estimated that the Dubai company is entitled to a profit of 6.72% of the Dubai company’s expenses. C’s expenditure on the Dubai company was then estimated for tax purposes to be approximately DKK 20 million for the period 2006-10. For the reasons stated by the Regional Court, the Supreme Court finds that C and B have not demonstrated that the TNM method was not applicable as a pricing method. C and B submit that SKAT’s calculation does not take account of the fact that a partner in a law firm – as described, inter alia, in the Competition Council’s analysis report of 14 January 2021 on ‘Competition in the legal profession’ – receives both payment for his work and remuneration for ownership in the form of a share of the law firm’s profits. The Ministry of Taxation has submitted to the Supreme Court a calculation which, according to the Ministry, shows that a discretionary tax assessment based on the conclusions of the said report would not have resulted in a lower tax assessment than the tax assessment calculated by SKAT based on the application of the TNM method and RoTC as described above. The Supreme Court considers that, with regard to this calculation, C and B have not provided any evidence that the tax authorities’ estimate rests on an incorrect or inadequate basis or is manifestly unreasonable. There are therefore no grounds for setting aside the tax authorities’ assessment and referring the case back to the Court.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

A Regional Tax Court in Germany had requested a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice on two questions related to German transfer pricing documentation requirements. whether the freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU) or the freedom to provide services (Article 56 TFEU) is to be interpreted in such a way that it precludes the obligation to provide transfer pricing documentation for transactions with a foreign related parties (Section 90 (3) AO) and whether the sanctions regulated in section 162(4) AO could be contrary to EU law The Regional Tax Court considered that these provisions establish special documentation requirements for taxpayers with transactions with foreign related parties. In the event of non-compliance with these documentation requirements, section 162(4) AO leads to a sanction in the form of a fine/surcharge. Neither was provided for taxpayers with transactions with domestic related parties. However, such discrimination can be justified by compelling reasons in the public interest. In this context, the Regional Tax Court considered the legitimate objective of preventing tax avoidance and the preservation of the balanced distribution of taxation powers between the Member States as possible grounds for justification. However, the Tax Court was not confident in regards to the level of sanctions – i.e. whether the fine/surcharges went beyond what was necessary to achieve the intended purpose. Judgement of the European Court of Justice The Court ruled that German transfer pricing documentation requirement and related sanctions was not in conflict with EU law. “Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation under which, in the first place, the taxpayer is subject to an obligation to provide documentation on the nature and content of, as well as on the economic and legal bases for, prices and other terms and conditions of his, her or its cross-border business transactions, with parties with which he, she or it has a relationship of interdependence, in capital or other aspects, enabling that taxpayer or those parties to exercise a definite influence over the other, and which provides, in the second place, in the event of infringement of that obligation, not only that his, her or its taxable income in the Member State concerned is rebuttably presumed to be higher than that which has been declared, and the tax authorities may carry out an estimate to the detriment of the taxpayer, but also that a surcharge of an amount equivalent to at least 5% and at most 10% of the excess income determined is imposed, with a minimum amount of EUR 5 000, unless non-compliance with that obligation is excusable or if the fault involved is minor.” ...

In 2011, Petrolia SE established a wholly owned subsidiary in Norway – Petrolia Noco AS – to conduct oil exploration activities on the Norwegian shelf. From the outset, Petrolia Noco AS received a loan from the parent company Petrolia SE. The written loan agreement was first signed later on 15 May 2012. The loan limit was originally MNOK 100 with an agreed interest rate of 3 months NIBOR with the addition of a margin of 2.25 percentage points. When the loan agreement was formalized in writing in 2012, the agreed interest rate was changed to 3 months NIBOR with the addition of an interest margin of 10 percentage points. The loan limit was increased to MNOK 150 in September 2012, and then to MNOK 330 in April 2013. In the tax return for 2012 and 2013, Petrolia Noco AS demanded a full deduction for actual interest costs on the intra-group loan to the parent company Petrolia SE. An assessment was issued by the tax authorities for these years, where the interest deductions had been partially disallowed. The assessment for these years was later upheld in court. For FY 2014, 2015 and 2016, Petrolia Noco AS had also claimed a full deduction for actual interest costs on the entire intra-group loan to the parent company. It is the assessment for these years that is the subject of dispute in this case. The assessment was first brought to the Court of Oslo where a decision in favour of the tax authorities was issued in November 2021. This decision was appealed by Petrolia Noco AS to the Court of Appeal. Judgement of the Court The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and decided in favour of the Norwegian tax authorities. Excerpts “The Court of Appeal also agrees with the state that neither the cost plus method nor a rationality analysis can be considered applicable in this case. With the result the Court of Appeal has reached so far, the CUP method should be preferred – in line with the OECD guidelines. After this, in summary, it appears clear that the interest margin on the intra-group loan is significantly higher than in a comparable and independent market and thus not an arm’s length price. The higher interest implies a reduction in the appellant’s income, cf. Tax Act section 13-1 first paragraph. The Court of Appeal cannot see that the adjustments claimed by the appellant change this. In the Court of Appeal’s view, it is also clear that the reduction in income has its cause in the community of interest. Whether adjustments should be made to the basis of comparison at the time of the price change, the Court of Appeal comes back to when assessing the exercise of discretion. Consequently, there was access to a discretionary determination of the appellant’s income according to Section 13-1 first paragraph of the Tax Act, also with regard to the interest margin.” “In the Court of Appeal’s view, additional costs that would have been incurred by independent parties, but which are not relevant in the controlled transaction, must be disregarded. Reference is made to the OECD guidelines (2020) point C.1.2.2, section 10.96: In considering arm’s length pricing of loans, the issue of fees and charges in relation to the loan may arise. Independent commercial lenders will sometimes charge fees as part of the terms and conditions of the loan, for example arrangement fees or commitment fees in relation to an undrawn facility. If such charges are seen in a loan between associated enterprises, they should be evaluated in the same way as any other intra-group transaction. In doing so, it must be borne in mind that independent lenders’ charges will in part reflect costs incurred in the process of raising capital and in satisfying regulatory requirements, which associated enterprises might not incur. The decisive factor is whether the costs or rights that the effective interest margin in the observed exploration loans between independent parties is an expression of, are also relevant in the intra-group loan. As far as the Court of Appeal understands, the appellant does not claim that various fees or costs incurred in exploration loans from a bank have been incurred in the intra-group loan, and in any case no evidence has been provided for this. In the Court of Appeal’s view, such costs and fees are therefore not relevant in the comparison. The appellant, on the other hand, has stated that the loan limit that Petrolia SE had made available, and the fact that the loan limit was increased if necessary, means that a so-called “commitment fee”, which accrues in loans between independent parties where an unused credit facility is provided, must be considered built into the agreed interest rate. In the Court of Appeal’s view, Petrolia SE cannot be considered to have had any obligation to make a loan limit available or to increase the loan limit if necessary. It appears from the loan agreement point 3.2 that the lender could demand repayment of the loan at its own discretion. The appellant has stated that this did not entail any real risk for the borrower. It is probably conceivable that Petrolia SE did not intend for this clause to be used, and that the appellant had an expectation of this. In this sense, it was a reality in the loan framework. However, it is clear, and acknowledged by the appellant, that the point of financing the appellant through loans rather than higher equity was Petrolia SE’s need for flexibility. Thus, it appears to the Court of Appeal that it is clear that the appellant had no unconditional right to the unused part of the loan limit. The Court of Appeal therefore believes that the Board of Appeal has not made any mistakes by comparing with nominal interest margins. On this basis, the Court of Appeal can also see no reason why it should have been compared with the upper tier of the observed nominal interest margins in the exploration loans between independent parties. In ...

ST Dupont is a French luxury manufacturer of lighters, pens and leather goods. It is majority-owned by the Dutch company D&D International, which is wholly-owned by Broad Gain Investments Ltd, based in Hong Kong. ST Dupont is the sole shareholder of distribution subsidiaries located abroad, in particular ST Dupont Marketing, based in Hong Kong. Following an audit, an adjustment was issued where the tax administration considered that the prices at which ST Dupont sold its products to ST Dupont Marketing (Hong Kong) were lower than the arm’s length prices. “The investigation revealed that the administration found that ST Dupont was making significant and persistent losses, with an operating loss of between EUR 7,260,086 and EUR 32,408,032 for the financial years from 2003 to 2009. It also noted that its marketing subsidiary in Hong Kong, ST Dupont Marketing, in which it held the entire capital, was making a profit, with results ranging from EUR 920,739 to EUR 3,828,051 for the same years.” Applying a CUP method the tax administration corrected the losses declared by ST Dupont in terms of corporation tax for the financial years ending in 2009, 2010 and 2011. Not satisfied with the adjustment ST Dupont filed an appeal with the Paris administrative Court where parts of the tax assessment in a decision issued in 2019 were set aside by the court (royalty payments and resulting adjustments to loss carry forward) Still not satisfied with the result, an appeal was filed by ST Dupont with the CAA of Paris. Judgement of the CAA The Court of appeal dismissed the appeal of ST Dupont and upheld the decision of the court of first instance. Excerpt “It follows from the above that the administration provides proof of the existence and amount of an advantage granted to ST Dupont Marketing that it was entitled to reintegrate into ST Dupont’s results, pursuant to the provisions of Article 57 of the General Tax Code, before drawing the consequences on the amount of the deficits declared by this company in terms of corporation tax, on the liability of the sums thus distributed to the withholding tax and on the integration in the base of the minimum contribution of professional tax and the contribution on the added value of companies. 29. It follows from all the foregoing that ST Dupont is not entitled to maintain that it was wrongly that, by the contested judgment, the Paris Administrative Court rejected the remainder of its claim. Its claims for the annulment of Article 4 of that judgment, for the discharge of the taxes remaining in dispute and for the restoration of its declared carry-over deficit in its entirety must therefore be rejected.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

A AG, which was founded in 2000 by researchers from the University of Applied Sciences D, has as its object the development and distribution of …, in particular in the areas of ….. It had its registered office in Zurich until the transfer of its registered office to Zug in 2021. By contract dated 16 June 2011, it was taken over by Group E, Country Q, or by an acquisition company founded by it for this purpose, for a share purchase price of EUR …. On the same day, it concluded two contracts with E-Schweiz AG, which was in the process of being founded (entered in the Commercial Register on 7 September 2011), in which it undertook to provide general and administrative services on the one hand and research and development on the other. As of 30 September 2011, A AG sold all ”Intellectual Property Rights” (IPR) and ”Non-Viral Contracts” to E-Company, a company in U with tax domicile on the island of V, for a price of EUR … for the IPR and EUR … for the ”Non-Viral Contracts”. A AG had neither identifiable operating activities nor personnel substance in the financial year from 01.10.2011-30.09.2012 following the shareholding transaction. The transfer of the tangible and intangible business assets and the personnel of A AG to other companies of the E group corresponded to an integration plan that had already been set out in a draft power point presentation of the E group prior to the acquisition of the shares. Following an audit the tax authorities issued an assessment for additional taxable net profit for the tax period 01.01.-30.09.2011 for state and communal taxes and direct federal tax, as well as taxable equity of CHF … for state and communal taxes. The assessed taxable net profit included a hidden profit distribution from the sale of the IPR and customer relationships to the E-Company. The calculations of profits was made as a discretionary estimate. An appeal was filed by A AG with the tax court which was dismissed with respect to the calculations of profits due to the sale of intangible assets at a lower price, but were upheld with respect to the transfer of functions. An appeal was then filed with the administrative court by both A AG and the tax authorities. A AG requested that the assessment of the Tax Office be dismissed with costs and compensation. The Tax Office requested the dismissal of the complaints of the obligated party and the annulment of the decision of the Tax Appeal Court and confirmation of the objection decisions with costs to be borne by the obligated party. Judgement of the Administrative Court The court ruled in favour of the tax authorities and remanded the case to the court of first instance for recalculation. Excerpts “The subject matter of the proceedings are reorganisation measures carried out after the change of shareholders, which were connected with the sale of assets of the obligated party to other group companies and the abandonment of traditional operating activities. The dispute revolves around the question of whether the obligated party provided services to related companies under conditions that do not comply with the principles of tax law regarding the appropriateness of performance and consideration between related parties and whether it therefore provided non-cash benefits or hidden profit distributions that are subject to profit tax.” “According to the correct findings of the Tax Appeals Court, to which reference can be made, the large discrepancy between the values according to the transfer price study of company I and the share purchase price and the result of the PPA was suitable to cast doubt on the correctness of the transfer price study. Even if the objections to the comparability with the PPA were true, the relevance of the PPA (wrongly disputed by the obligated party) could not be verified without the data used in its preparation. The share purchase price was agreed among independent third parties and therefore corresponded to the enterprise value at the time of the acquisition of the shareholding. According to the findings of the lower court, the transfer price study was only subsequently prepared in 2012 and is incomplete in various respects, which was not refuted by the obligated party. The Tax Appeals Court therefore concluded that the requirement had not been fulfilled and that the facts of the case had remained unclear. In particular, there had been uncertainty about the actual value of the intangible rights sold after the investigation had been completed. The Cantonal Tax Office’s assertion that the agreed purchase price for the intangible rights was too low had not been refuted and, based on the comparison with the PPA and the share purchase price, this assertion appeared very likely. The Cantonal Tax Office had therefore provided the main evidence incumbent upon it. Because the cantonal tax office had not been able to carry out its own valuation due to the lack of data, it had rightly proceeded to an estimate. According to the decision of the lower court, the discretionary assessments regarding the profit from the sale of the intangible assets were rightly made.” “Moreover, the burden of proving the obvious incorrectness of the discretionary assessment is placed on the taxpayer, which is not to be equated with a “reversal of the burden of proof” (on the whole Zweifel/Hunziker, Kommentar StHG, Art. 48 N. 44; diesel, Kommentar DBG, Art. 132 N. 37; Zweifel et al., Schweizerisches Steuerverfahrensrecht, § 20 Rz. 22).” “An estimate is “obviously incorrect” if it cannot be objectively justified, in particular if it is recognisably motivated by penalties or fiscal considerations, if it is based on improper bases, methods or aids for estimation or if it cannot otherwise be reasonably reconciled with the circumstances of the individual case as known from the experience of life. Obviously incorrect is therefore an estimate that is based on an abusive use of the estimation discretion, i.e. is arbitrary (Zweifel/Hunziker, Kommentar StHG, Art. 48 N. 59; dieselben, Kommentar DBG, Art. 132 N ...

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

The case concerned a Danish company that provided legal services regarding tax deductions for improvements to real estate, etc. In 2006, the owner of the Danish company moved to Y2 city and in the process established a company in Y2 city, which would then provide services to the Danish sister company, including legal advice. The tax authorities had increased the Danish company’s taxable income by an estimated total of approximately DKK 58.4 million, as the tax authorities considered that the company’s transfer pricing documentation was sufficiently deficient, in accordance with Section 3 B(8) of the Tax Control Act, cf. Section 5(3), and that the service agreements were not concluded at arm’s length in breach Danish arm’s length provisions. Judgement of the High Court The tax authorities were entitled to exercise discretion over pricing of the controlled transactions as the transactions had not been priced at arm’s length and the transfer pricing documentation was deficient. “The case shows that SKAT’s estimate of H2 ApS’s payment (management fee) for the services provided by G1 is based on the TNM method as a pricing method, which is justified in particular by the fact that G1 was a simple service/service provider. Furthermore, the case shows that in calculating G1’s transfer prices for the provision of services to H2 ApS, SKAT carried out a benchmark analysis of 25 comparable law firms and audit firms using Return on Total Cost (hereinafter RoTC) as a profit level indicator. It is stated that RoTC is calculated by dividing the companies’ profits (earnings before interest and tax) by their costs (total costs). The benchmark analysis showed a market RoTC median of 6,72 %, which implied that the tax authorities considered G1 eligible to earn a profit of 6,72 % in relation to G1’s expenses and that G1’s expenses with the said mark-up could be approved as the amount of H2 ApS’s expenses to G1 for tax purposes for the period 2006-2010 (approximately DKK 20 million). The High Court accepts, after an overall assessment, that the services provided by G1 to H2 ApS are comparable to the services provided by law firms and auditing companies and that the applicants have not demonstrated that the TNM method was not applicable as a pricing method, also referring to the above-mentioned reason why, in the High Court’s view, the profit-split method was not the appropriate pricing method to apply in relation to the controlled transactions. The High Court considers that, on the basis of the evidence submitted – in particular in the light of the calculation of the profit rate in the legal sector contained in the Competition Council’s analysis report of 14 December 2005 – the applicants have not established that the profit-split method was applied. In the light of the evidence, including the evidence of the profitability analysis carried out by the tax authorities, as set out in the Competition Authority’s report of 14 January 2021 on ‘Competition in the legal sector’, the applicant submits that the tax authorities’ estimate in the present case is based on an incorrect or inadequate basis capable of influencing the estimate, having regard also to the fact that the Y2 company mainly provided legal services and that approximately half of the companies included in the SKAT benchmark analysis are law firms. In this respect, the Court of Appeal has emphasised in particular that it follows from the above-mentioned analysis report that a partner in a law firm receives a salary for work performed as well as a remuneration for ownership in the form of a share of the law firm’s profits, that if the partners’ income is calculated on the basis of their personal income – which includes both a salary for work performed as well as a remuneration for ownership – the profit rate in the legal sector was between 30 and 35 %. in the years 2012 to 2018, and that the profit rate was around 20 per cent in those years if the remuneration for the partners’ work is adjusted. The High Court thus considers that the calculation method used by SKAT does not take proper account of the remuneration structure of law firms and that SKAT’s benchmark analysis thus arrived at a profit rate which is not accurate. In doing so, the High Court also took into account that it follows from TPG 2010, points 2.90-2.91, 2.92 and 2.97, that profit level indicator may be, inter alia, net profit in relation to turnover (sales), costs (costs) or assets (assets), see also section C.D.11.4.1.4 of the Legal Guide 2021-1. On the basis of the above, the High Court remands the tax assessment for Rafn & Søn ApS and, consequently, the determination of the joint taxable income for PB Holding ApS for the income years 2006-2010, as regards the amount of DKK 33,699,860, to be reviewed by the Tax Agency in order for the Tax Agency to take due account of the remuneration structure of the law firms in the discretionary assessment.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

The Danish tax authorities had issued a discretionary assessment of the taxable income of Tetra Pak Processing Systems A/S due to inadequate transfer pricing documentation and continuous losses. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court found that the TP documentation provided by the company did not comply to the required standards. The TP documentation did state how prices between Tetra Pak and the sales companies had been determined and did not contain a comparability analysis, as required under the current § 3 B, para. 5 of the Tax Control Act and section 6 of the Danish administrative ordinance regarding transfer pricing documentation. Against this background, the Supreme Court found that the TP documentation was deficient to such an extent that it had to be equated with missing documentation. The Supreme Court agreed that Tetra Pak’s taxable income for FY 2005-2009 could be determined on a discretionary basis. According to the Supreme Court Tetra Pak had not proved that the tax authorities’ discretionary assessments were based on an incorrect or deficient basis, or that the assessment had led to a clearly unreasonable result. Hence, there was no basis for setting aside the assessment. The Supreme Court therefore upheld the prior High Court’s decision. In the decision reference is made to OECD 2010 Transfer Pricing Guidelines Importance of Transfer Pricing documentation and comparability analysis: Para 1.6, 2.22, 2.23, 2.78, 3.1, 3.22 and 5.17 Choice of tested party: Para 3.18 Exceptional and extraordinary costs and calculation of net profit indicator/profit level indicator: Para 2.80 Click here for translation ...

In 2011, Petrolia SE established a wholly owned subsidiary in Norway – Petrolia Noco AS – to conduct oil exploration activities on the Norwegian shelf. From the outset, Petrolia Noco AS received a loan from the parent company Petrolia SE. The written loan agreement was first signed later on 15 May 2012. The loan limit was originally MNOK 100 with an agreed interest rate of 3 months NIBOR with the addition of a margin of 2.25 percentage points. When the loan agreement was formalized in writing in 2012, the agreed interest rate was changed to 3 months NIBOR with the addition of an interest margin of 10 percentage points. The loan limit was increased to MNOK 150 in September 2012, and then to MNOK 330 in April 2013. In the tax return for 2012 and 2013, Petrolia Noco AS demanded a full deduction for actual interest costs on the intra-group loan to the parent company Petrolia SE. Following an audit for FY 2012 and 2013, the tax authorities concluded that parts of the intra-group loan should be reclassified from loan to equity due to thin capitalization. Thus, only a deduction was granted for part of the interest costs. Furthermore, the authorities reduced the interest rate from 10 per cent to 5 per cent. For the income years 2012 and 2013, this meant that the company’s interest costs for distribution between the continental shelf and land were reduced by NOK 2,499,551 and NOK 6,482,459, respectively, and financial expenses by NOK 1,925,963 and NOK 10,188,587,respectively. The assessment was first brought to the Court of Oslo where a decision in favour of the tax authorities was issued in November 2019. This decision was appealed by Petrolia Noco AS to the Court of Appeal. Judgement of the Court The Court of Appeal also decided in favour of the Norwegian tax authorities. Excerpts “The Court adds for this reason that the appellant had higher debt ratio than the company could have had if the loan should have been taken up from an independent lender. In the Court of Appeal’s view, the fact that the appellant actually took out such a high loan as the intra-group loan is solely due to the fact that the lender was the company’s parent company. For this reason, there was a ” reduction ” in the appellant income ” due to” the community of interest. There is thus access to discretion in accordance with the Tax Act § 13-1 first paragraph.” “Thus, there is no basis for the allegation that the Appeals Board’s decision is based on an incorrect fact on this point, and in any case not a fact to the detriment of the appellant. Following this, the Court of Appeal finds that there are no errors in the Appeals Board’s exercise of discretion with regard to the determination of the company’s borrowing capacity. The decision is therefore valid with regard to the thin capitalization.” “The Court of Appeal otherwise agrees with the respondent that the cost- plus method cannot be considered applicable in this case. Reference is made to LB-2016-160306, where it is stated : For loans, however, there is a market, and the comparable prices are margins on loans with similar risk factors at the same time of lending . The cost- plus method provides no guidance for pricing an individual loan. An lender will, regardless of its own costs , not achieve a better interest rate on lending than what is possible to achieve in the market. The Court of Appeal agrees with this, and further points out that the risk picture for Petrolia Noco AS and Petrolia SE was fundamentally different. The financing costs of Petrolia SE therefore do not provide a reliable basis for assessing the arm’s length interest rate on the loan to Petrolia Noco AS.” “…the Court of Appeal can also see no reason why it should have been compared with the upper tier of the observed nominal interest margins in the exploration loans between independent parties. In general, an average such as the Appeals Board has been built on must be assumed to take into account both positive and negative possible variables in the uncontrolled exploration loans in a responsible manner. The Court of Appeal cannot otherwise see that the discretion is arbitrary or highly unreasonable. The decision is therefore also valid with regard to the price adjustment.” Click here for translation ...

“H Borrower and Lender A/S”, a Danish subsidiary in the H Group, had placed deposits at and received loans from a group treasury company, H4, where the interest rate paid on the loans was substantially higher than the interest rate received on the deposits. Due to insufficient transfer pricing documentation, the tax authorities (SKAT) issued a discretionary assessment of taxable income where the interest rate on the loans had been adjusted based on the rate received on the deposits. Decision of the Court The National Tax Tribunal stated that the documentation was deficient to such an extent that it could be equated with a lack of documentation. The tax authorities had therefore been entitled to make a discretionary assessment. The National Tax Court referred, among other things, to the fact that the company’s transfer pricing documentation lacked a basic functional analysis of the group treasury company with which the company had controlled transactions. “The National Tax Tribunal finds that the company has not proved that SKAT’s estimates are not in accordance with the arm’s length principle. It is hereby emphasized that the company has received a loan from H4, where the interest rate is based on a base interest rate plus a risk margin of 130 bps. Thus, the interest paid on these loans has been higher than the interest received by placing liquidity with H4. The National Tax Tribunal does not find it proved by the company that these two cash flows should constitute different financing instruments with different risks, and that the interest rates must therefore be different. The lack of functional analysis for H4 in the TP documentation means, in the opinion of the National Tax Tribunal, that it cannot be considered to be in accordance with the arm’s length principle, that H4 must receive a proportionately higher interest payment from the company than what is paid to the company. In this connection, it is taken into account that H4 has no employees and thus cannot be considered to have control over the risks associated with the various controlled transactions. The fact that the company has entered into different contractual obligations for the two cash flows is given less weight due to the lack of a functional analysis for H4. The company’s argument that the interest rate for deposits with H4 according to the National Tax Court’s previous decision, published by SKM2014.53.LSR, must be determined without risk margin, as there is a full set-off against the company’s loan from H4, can not either taken into account, as the interest rates for the two cash flows in this way would be different. The National Tax Tribunal finds that the decision in SKM2014.53.LSR must be interpreted as meaning that the interest rates for comparable cash flows that are fully hedged between two group parties must bear interest at the same rate, as the cash flows in this way cancel out each other.” Click here for translation ...

ECCO A/S is the parent company of a multinational group, whose main activity is the design, development, production and sale of shoes. The group was founded in 1963, and has since gone from being a small Danish shoe manufacturer to being a global player with about 20,000 employees and with sales and production subsidiaries in a large number of countries. ECCO purchased goods from both internal and external producers, and at issue was whether transactions with it’s foreign subsidiaries had been conducted at arm’s length terms. ECCO had prepared two sets of two transfer pricing documentation, both of which were available when the tax authorities issued its assessment. The transfer pricing documentation contained a review of the parent company’s pricing and terms in relation to both internal and external production companies, and a comparability analyzes. The High Court issued a decision in favor of the ECCO A/S. The Court found that the transfer pricing documentation was not deficient to such an extent that it could be equated with missing documentation, and that the tax authorities did not prove that the pricing of the controlled transactions had not been at arm’s length. Hence, there was no justification for the assessment of additional income. Click here for translation ...

The question in this case was whether royalty payments from a loss making Danish subsidiary Adecco A/S (H1 A/S in the decision) to its Swiss parent company Adecco SA (G1 SA in the decision – an international provider of temporary and permanent employment services active throughout the entire range of sectors in Europe, the Americas, the Middle East and Asia – for use of trademarks and trade names, knowhow, international network intangibles, and business concept were deductible expenses for tax purposes or not. In  2013, the Danish tax authorities (SKAT) had amended Adecco A/S’s taxable income for the years 2006-2009 by a total of DKK 82 million. Adecco A/S submitted that the company’s royalty payments were operating expenses deductible under section 6 (a) of the State Tax Act and that it was entitled to tax deductions for royalty payments of 1.5% of the company’s turnover in the first half of 2006 and 2% up to and including 2009, as these prices were in line with what would have been agreed if the transactions had been concluded between independent parties and thus compliant  with the requirement in section 2 of the Tax Assessment Act (- the arm’s length principle). In particular, Adecco A/S claimed that the company had lifted its burden of proof that the basic conditions for deductions pursuant to section 6 (a) of the State Tax Act were met, and the royalty payments thus deductible to the extent claimed. According to section 6 (a) of the State Tax Act expenses incurred during the year to acquire, secure and maintain income are deductible for tax purposes. There must be a direct and immediate link between the expenditure incurred and the acquisition of income. The company hereby stated that it was not disputed that the costs were actually incurred and that it was evident that the royalty payment was in the nature of operating costs, since the company received significant economic value for the payments. The High Court ruled in favor of the Danish tax authorities and concluded as follows: “Despite the fact that, as mentioned above, there is evidence to suggest that H1 A/S’s payment of royalties for the use of the H1 A/S trademark is a deductible operating expense, the national court finds, in particular, that H1 A/S operates in a national Danish market, where price is by far the most important competitive parameter, that the company has for a very long period largely only deficit, that it is an agreement on payment to the company’s ultimate parent company – which must be assumed to have its own purpose of being represented on the Danish market – and that royalty payments must be regarded as a standard condition determined by G1 SA independent of the market in which the Danish company is working, as well as the information on the marketing costs incurred in the Danish company and in the Swiss company compared with the failure to respond to the relevant provocations that H1 A/S has not lifted the burden of proof that the payments of royalties to the group-affiliated company G1 SA, constitutes a deductible operating expense, cf. section 6 (a) of the State Tax Act. 4.5 and par. 4.6, the national court finds that the company’s royalty payment cannot otherwise be regarded as a deductible operating expense.” Adecco appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the High Court and ruled in favor of Adecco. The Supreme Court held that the royalty payments had the nature of deductible operating costs. The Supreme Court also found that Adecco A/S’s transfer pricing documentation for the income years in question was not insufficient to such an extent that it could be considered equal to lack of documentation. The company’s income could therefore not be determined on a discretionary basis by the tax authorities. Finally, the Supreme Court did not consider that a royalty rate of 2% was not at arm’s length, or that Adecco A/S’s marketing in Denmark of the Adecco brand provided a basis for deducting in the royalty payment a compensation for a marketing of the global brand. Click here for translation ...

At issue was the question of whether the Danish tax authorities had been entitled to make a discretionary assessment of the taxable income of Icemachine Manufacturer A/S due to inadequate transfer pricing documentation and continuous losses. And if such a discretionary assessment was justified, the question of whether the company had lifted the burden of proof that the tax authorities’ estimates had been clearly unreasonable. The Court ruled that the transfer pricing documentation provided by the company was so inadequate that it did not provide the tax authorities with a sufficient basis for determining whether the arm’s length principle had been followed. The tax authorities had therefore been entitled to make a discretionary assessment of the taxable income. For that purpose the Court found that the tax authorities had been justified in using the TNM method with the Danish company as the tested party, since sufficiently reliable information on the sales companies in the group had not been provided. Click here for translation (Part I) Click here for translation (Part II) ...

A / S Norske Shell runs petroleum activities on the Norwegian continental shelf. By the judgment of the Court of Appeal in 2019, it had been decided that there was a basis for a discretionary tax assessment pursuant to section 13-1 of the Tax Act, based on the fact that costs for research and development in Norway should have been distributed among the other group members. According to section 13-1 third paragraph of the Norwegian Tax Act the Norwegian the arms length provisions must take into account OECD’s Transfer pricing guidelines. And according to the Court of Appeal the Petroleum Tax Appeals Board had correctly concluded – based on the fact – that this was a cost contribution arrangement. Hence the income determination then had to be in accordance with what follows from the OECD guidelines for such arrangements (TPG Chapter VIII). The question before the Supreme Court was whether this additional income assessment should also include the part of the costs charged to A/S Norske Shell’s license partners in recovery projects on the Norwegian continental shelf. The Supreme Court concluded that the tax assessment should not include R&D costs charged to A/S Norske Shell’s license partners on the Norwegian continental shelf. Click here for translation ...

Results in a Danish company engaged in distribution of pharmaceuticals were significantly below the arm’s length range of net profit according to the benchmark study, but by disregarding annual goodwill amortization of DKK 57.1 million, the results were within the arm’s length range. The goodwill being amortized in Pharma Distributor A A/S had been determined under a prior acquisition of the company, and later – due to a merger with the acquiring danish company – booked in Pharma Distributor A A/S. The main question in the case was whether Pharma Distributor A A/S were entitled to disregard the goodwill amortization in the comparability analysis. The national tax court had ruled in favor of the company, but the national court reached the opposite result. Thus, the National Court found that the goodwill in question had to be regarded as an operating asset, and therefore the depreciation had to be regarded as operating expenses when calculating the net profit (EBIT margin). In 2017 the Danish tax tribunal found in favor of Pharma Distributor A A/S However, The Danish National Court found that the controlled transactions had not been priced in accordance with the arm’s length principle in section 2 (2) of the Tax Assessment Act. 1, and that the tax authorities was therefore basically justified in assessing the income of Pharma Distributor A A/S. But there was no basis for adjustment for the income year 2010, where the EBIT margin of the company (including goodwill amortization) was within the interquartile range of the benchmark. The National Court further found that Pharma Distributor A A/S had not demonstrated that the companies whose results were included in the benchmark possessed goodwill that was simply not capitalized and which corresponded approximately to the value of the goodwill in Pharma Distributor A A/S. Therefore, the National Court did not find that adjusting for goodwill amortization in the comparability analysis, would make the comparison more correct. Pharma Distributor A A/S also claimed that special commercial conditions (increased price competition, restructuring , etc.) and not incorrect pricing had led to lower earnings. The Court found that such conditions had not been demonstrated by the company. On this basis, the National Court found that the tax authorities was entitled to make the assessment of additional income in FY 2006-2009, but not for FY 2010. The court found that, when adjusting the taxable income, an individual estimate must be made for each year, based on what income the defendants could be assumed to have obtained if they had acted in in accordance with the arm’s length principle. The court referred the case for re-assessment of the taxable income for FY 2006-2009. Click here for translation ...

In 2011, Petrolia SE established a wholly owned subsidiary in Norway – Petrolia Noco AS – to conduct oil exploration activities on the Norwegian shelf. From the outset Petrolia Noco AS received a loan from the parent company Petrolia SE. The written loan agreement was first signed later on 15 May 2012. The loan limit was originally MNOK 100 with an agreed interest rate of 3 months NIBOR with the addition of a margin of 2.25 percentage points. When the loan agreement was formalized in writing in 2012, the agreed interest rate was changed to 3 months NIBOR with the addition of an interest margin of 10 percentage points. The loan limit was increased to MNOK 150 in September 2012, and then to MNOK 330 in April 2013. In the tax return for 2012 and 2013, Petrolia Noco AS demanded a full deduction for actual interest costs on the intra-group loan to the parent company Petrolia SE. Following an audit for FY 2012 and 2013, the tax authorities concluded that parts of the intra-group loan should be reclassified from loan to equity due to thin capitalization. Thus, only a deduction was granted for part of the interest costs. Furthermore, the authorities reduced the interest rate from 10 per cent to 5 per cent. For the income years 2012 and 2013, this meant that the company’s interest costs for distribution between the continental shelf and land were reduced by NOK 2,499,551 and NOK 6,482,459, respectively, and financial expenses by NOK 1,925,963 and NOK 10,188,587,respectively. The Court decided in favor of the Norwegian tax authorities. Click here for translation ...

ST Dupont is a French luxury manufacturer of lighters, pens and leather goods. It is majority-owned by the Dutch company, D&D International, which is wholly-owned by Broad Gain Investments Ltd, based in Hong Kong. ST Dupont is the sole shareholder of distribution subsidiaries located abroad, in particular ST Dupont Marketing, based in Hong Kong. Following an audit, an adjustment was issued for FY 2009, 2010 and 2011 where the tax administration considered that the prices at which ST Dupont sold its products to ST Dupont Marketing (Hong Kong) were lower than the arm’s length prices, that royalty rates had not been at arm’s length. Furthermore adjustments had been made to losses carried forward. Not satisfied with the adjustment ST Dupont filed an appeal with the Paris administrative Court. Judgement of the Administrative Court The Court set aside the tax assessment in regards to license payments and resulting adjustments to loss carry forward but upheld in regards of pricing of the products sold to ST Dupont Marketing (Hong Kong). Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

The Danish tax authorities were of the opinion that Microsoft Denmark had not been properly remunerated for performing marketing activities due to the fact that OEM sales to Danish customers via MNE OEM’s had not been included in the calculation of local commissions. According to the Market Development Agreement (MDA agreement) concluded between Microsoft Denmark and MIOL with effect from 1 July 2003, Microsoft Denmark received the largest amount of either a commission based on sales invoiced in Denmark or a markup on it’s costs. Microsoft Denmark’s commission did not take into account the sale of Microsoft products that occurred through the sale of computers by multinational computer manufacturers with pre-installed Microsoft software to end users in Denmark – (OEM sales). In court, Microsoft required a dismissal. In a narrow 3:2 decision the Danish Supreme Court found in favor of Microsoft. “…Microsoft Denmark’s marketing may have had some derivative effect, especially in the period around the launch in 2007 of the Windows Vista operating system, which made higher demands on the computers. On the other hand, it must be assumed that also the recommendations of Microsoft products made by the multinational computer manufacturers under agreements between, among others, Dell and Microsoft Denmark’s American parent company, which, in return, gave discounts to computer manufacturers, may have had an effect on, among other things. sales of Package licenses in Denmark, whereby Microsoft Denmark, in its remuneration, benefited from this marketing effort. The significance of the various companies’ marketing efforts and the interaction between them has not been elucidated during the case, and we find it unlikely that Microsoft Denmark’s marketing had an effect on the sale of MNA OEM licenses in the US and other countries outside Denmark, which exceeded the importance of computer manufacturers marketing for the sale of package licenses, which were included in the basis for the remuneration of Microsoft Denmark. … Based on the above, we do not find that Microsoft Denmark’s remuneration for the company’s marketing efforts was not in accordance with the arm’s length principle.” Click here for translation ...

Following an audit of GE Medical Systems Limited Partnership (SCS), which is engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of medical equipment and software, the French tax authorities issued an assessment related to the “value added amount” produced by the company, which serves as the basis for calculating the French minimum contribution of business tax provided for in Article 1647 E of the General Tax Code. The tax authorities was of the view that (1) prices charged for goods and services provided to foreign-affiliated companies had been lower than arm’s length prices and that (2) part of deducted factoring costs were not deductible in the basis for calculating the minimum business tax. On that basis a discretionary assessment of additional minimum business tax was issued. GE Medical Systems appealed the assessment to the Administrative Court of  Appeal. The Court of Appeal came to the conclusion that the basis for assessment of arm’s length prices of the goods and services sold had been sufficient, but in regards to the denial of deductions of the full factoring costs the court ruled in favor of GE Medical Systems. GE appealed the decision in relation to basis for the assessment of arm’s length prices for goods and services, and the tax authorities appealed the decision in relation to allowance of the full deduction of factoring costs in the basis for calculating the minimum business tax. The Supreme Court – Conseil d’État – denied the appeal of GE Medical Systems in relation to the basis for determining arm’s length prices of the goods and services sold to foreign-affiliated companies. On the issue of full deduction of factoring costs, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the tax authorities and annulled the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal. Click here for Translation ...

The Danish Tax Tribunal found that the tax administration had been entitled to make a discretionary assessment, due to the lack of a comparability analysis in the company’s transfer pricing documentation. The Tax Tribunal also found that the Danish company had correctly been chosen as tested party when applying the TNMM, although the foreign sales companies were the least complex. Information about the foreign sales companies was insufficient and a significant part of the income in the foreign sales companies related to sale of goods not purchased from the Danish production company. Click here for translation ...

Reca Química is active in industrial production of paints and synthetic resins. Its parent company is H.B. Fuller which is based in the United States. According to the “Transfer Pricing Policy” set by the parent company of the group and in place since 1992, a 10% margin on sales was applied to inventory transferred between affiliates. However, during the fiscal periods 2003 and 2004, the parent company changed the policy so that sales to related companies abroad were to be made with a profit margin of only 5%, while for local affiliates and independent parties, the margin would be 10%. The tax administration issued an assessment in which the margin of all the controlled transactions was set at 10% resulting in additional taxable income of ¢185,827,941.00. According to the tax administration the 5% margin was not even enough to cover the operating expenses for the transactions in question. In 2015 the Administrative Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Reca Quimica due to formal grounds. However, the assessment was allowed to be issued again in accordance with the guidelines set out in the ruling. An appeal was then filed with the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court upheld the Judgement of the Administrative Court of Appeal, except for allowed claims in respect of the award of damages and interest, which was annulled. The Courts considered that the the authorities had made an error in motivating the adjustment on a presumed basis determination, without complying with the legal requirements established for this type of tax determination. Furthermore, they said that if transfer prices had been determined, the authorities should have applied the adjustment according to one of the methods established by the OECD on a certain basis, and not on a presumed basis. The judicial decision commits, in our opinion, a mistake. The five OECD methods are to determine whether or not there is transfer pricing. These methodologies are designed to examine whether prices between related parties are adjusted or not, to transactions in comparable circumstances between independent parties. But once it has been determined that there are transfer prices, what is appropriate is precisely to adjust them to prices under competitive conditions. The new price must then be set by the authorities, so that it is the basis for determining the corresponding tax obligations.” Excerpts “…this Chamber endorses the Court’s decision, insofar as it ruled that this discrepancy did not allow the use of the presumed basis method. Likewise, it considered, “…this allegation is fallacious, since using a margin in sales to related companies abroad different from that used in sales to other companies is not a true accounting irregularity or defect”. This is due to the fact that the accounting of the plaintiff could not be qualified as omissive, irregular and contradictory, since the taxpayer did not fail to provide information on its transactions, but rather, based on its reality, reported a different, -minor- profit in the transactions carried out with its related companies abroad (regardless of their normality), then the Administration should have applied the method of certain basis, via transfer prices.” “Hence, there is no doubt that what the Administration should have done was to determine, -by using transfer prices- whether the price at which it sold to its related companies abroad was dissimilar to the market price, but never to use, as it did, the estimate based on a presumptive basis. For, as explained above, the plaintiff provided in her declaration information on the price at which she sold to her related companies abroad. According to the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), there are five approved transfer pricing mechanisms, namely, first, the comparable free price method. Second, the resale price method. Third, the cost plus method. Fourth, the net transaction margin method; and fifth, the profit split method. With regard to this point, Executive Decree no. 37898-H of 5 June 1998 is currently in force in the legal system. 37898-H of 5 June 2013, and at the time of the facts that are of interest in the sub-lite, Interpretative Guideline no. 20-03 was in force, -with support in regulations 8 and 12 of the TC-. The legality of that Guideline was ratified by the Constitutional Chamber since its decision no. 2012-04940 of 15 hours 37 minutes on 18 April 2013. Consequently, the Court rightly stated: “…-based on what was indicated by the Chamber and taking into account the erga omnes binding effect of the constitutional jurisprudence (article 13 of Law 7135)- there is no contradiction between the transfer pricing methodology and the application of the economic reality principle of paragraphs 8 and 12 of the CNPT, nor is there any impediment to resort to the former even in the absence of an express legal rule that incorporates it into the Costa Rican legal system”. Thus, in this case, contrary to what was argued by the Administration, none of the assumptions established in canon 124 of the TC were met, so as to empower it to apply the presumptive basis methodology (article 125 ibid); on the contrary, according to the information provided by the plaintiff in its tax return, what was relevant was the application of the transfer pricing methodology, through any of its five mechanisms, so as to arrive at the correct determination of the tax liability. By not doing so, it is clear, as the judges ruled, that the Administration acted illegally, given that it should have applied the certain base method, which, since it was dealing with a transfer pricing case, should have been examined in accordance with the technical regulations of the OECD, which was feasible in accordance with the legal system in force at that time. Therefore, the complaint should be rejected.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

Taxpayer Du Pont de Nemours, the American chemical concern, created early in 1959 a wholly-owned Swiss marketing and sales subsidiary for foreign sales — Du Pont International S.A. (known to the record and the parties as DISA). Most of the Du Pont chemical products marketed abroad were first sold by taxpayer to DISA, which then arranged for resale to the ultimate consumer through independent distributors. The profits on these Du Pont sales were divided for income tax purposes between plaintiff and DISA via the mechanism of the prices plaintiff charged DISA. For 1959 and 1960 the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, acting under section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code which gives him authority to reallocate profits among commonly controlled enterprises, found these divisions of profits economically unrealistic as giving DISA too great a share. Accordingly, he reallocated a substantial part of DISA’s income to taxpayer, thus increasing the latter’s taxes for 1959 and 1960 by considerable sums. The additional taxes were paid and this refund suit was brought in due course. Du Pont assails the Service’s reallocation, urging that the prices plaintiff charged DISA were valid under the Treasury regulations implementing section 482. The Court ruled in favor of the tax authorities with the following reasons: “In reviewing the Commissioner’s allocation of income under Section 482, we focus on the reasonableness of the result, not the details of the examining agent’s methodology …. The amount of reallocation would not be easy for us to calculate if we were called upon to do it ourselves, but Section 482 gives that power to the Commissioner and we are content that his amount… was within the zone of reasonableness. The language of the statue and the holdings of the courts recognize that the Service has broad discretion in reallocating income … A ‘broad brush’ approach to this inexact field seems necessary.” ...