The tax authorities issued an assessment of additional taxable income for “D. sp. z o.o.” resulting in additional corporate income tax liability for 2014 in the amount of PLN 2,494,583. The basis for the assessment was the authority’s findings that the company understated its taxable income for 2014 by a total of PLN 49,732,274.05, as a result of the inclusion of deductible expenses interest in the amount of PLN 39,244,375.62, under an intra-group share purchase loan agreements paid to W. S.a.r.l. (Luxembourg) expenses for intra-group services in the amount of USD 2,957,837 (amount of PLN 10,487,898.43) paid to W. Inc. (USA) “D. sp. z o.o.” filed a complaint with the Administrative Court (WSA) requesting annulment of the assessment. In a judgment of 15 September 2020 the Administrative Court dismissed the complaint. In the opinion of the WSA, it was legitimate to adjust the terms of the loan agreement for tax purposes in such a way as to lead to transactions that would correspond to market conditions, thus disregarding the arrangements, cf. the OECD TPG 1995 para. 1.65 and 1.66. Furthermore, according to the court the company did not present credible evidence as to the ‘shareholder’s expenses’ and the fact that significant costs were incurred for analogous services purchased from other entities indicates duplication of expenses. Consequently, it is impossible to verify whether the disputed management services were performed at all. Not satisfied with the decision “D. sp. z o.o.” filed an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Supreme Administrative Court set aside the decision of the Administrative Court and the tax assessment and refered the case back to the tax authorities for a reexamination. According to the court, there was no legal basis in Poland in 2014 for the non-recognition or recharacterisation of controlled transactions. The Polish arm’s length principle only allowed the tax authorities to price controlled transactions. The provisions (Articles 119a § 1 and § 2 Op) allowing for the substitution of the effects of an artificial legal act, if the main or one of the main purposes of which was to achieve a tax advantage have been in force only since 15 July 2016. And the possibility provided for the tax authority to determine the taxpayer’s income or loss without taking into account the economically irrational transaction undertaken by related parties (Article 11c(4) of the CIT) came into existence even later, as of 1 January 2019. Excerpts “3.2 The tax authorities relied on section 11(1) of the Income Tax Act (as in force in 2014), under which the tax authorities could determine the taxpayer’s income and the tax due without taking into account the conditions established or imposed as a result of the relationship between the contracting entities. However, this income had to be determined by way of estimation, using the methods described in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 11 of the Income Tax Act. This is because these are not provisions creating abuse of rights or anti-avoidance clauses. They only allow a different determination of transaction (transfer) prices. The notion of ‘transaction price’ was defined in Article 3(10) of the Op, which, in the wording relevant to the tax period examined in the case, stated that it is the price of the subject of a transaction concluded between related parties. Thus, the essence of the legal institution stipulated in Article 11 of the CIT is not the omission of the legal effects of legal transactions made by the taxpayer or a different legal definition of those transactions, but the determination of their economic effect expressed in the transaction price, disregarding the impact of institutional links between the counterparties (…) It is therefore a legal institution with strictly defined characteristics and can only have the effects provided for in the provisions defining it (as the law stood in 2014). Meanwhile, the application of any provisions allowing the tax authorities to interfere in the legal relations freely formed by taxpayers must be strictly limited and restricted only to the premises defined in those provisions, as they are of a far-reaching interferential nature. Any broadening interpretation of them, as a result of which legal sanction could be obtained by the interference of public administration bodies going further than the grammatical meaning of the words and phrases used in the provisions establishing such powers, is inadmissible.” “3.3 The structure of the DIAS ruling corresponds to the hypothesis of the standard of Article 11c(4) of the 2019 CIT, which was not in force in 2014. Therefore, there was no adequate legal basis for its application with respect to 2014. This legal basis was not provided by Article 11 of the Corporate Income Tax Act in force at that time. This provision regulated the issue of so-called transfer prices, i.e. transaction prices applied between entities related by capital or personality. In this provision, the legislator emphasised the principle of applying the market price (also known as the arm’s length principle), requiring that prices in transactions between related parties be determined in such a way as if the companies were functioning as independent entities, operating on market terms and carrying out comparable transactions in similar market and factual circumstances. When the transaction under review deviates from those between independent parties, in comparable circumstances, then in the event of the occurrence of also other circumstances indicated in Article 11 of the updopdop, the tax authority may require an adjustment of profit. The legislative solutions adopted in Article 11 of the CIT Act (from 1 January 2019 in Article 11a et seq. of the CIT Act) refer to the recommendations contained in the OECD Guidelines on transfer pricing for multinational enterprises and tax administrations. The Guidelines were adopted by the OECD Committee on Fiscal Affairs on 27 June 1995 and approved for publication by the OECD Council on 13 July 1995 (they have been amended several times, including in 2010 and 2017). While the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines do not constitute a source of law in the territory ...

If an activity performed by a controlled taxpayer duplicates an activity that is performed, or that reasonably may be anticipated to be performed, by another controlled taxpayer on or for its own account, the activity is generally not considered to provide a benefit to the recipient, unless the duplicative activity itself provides an additional benefit to the recipient ...

Rayonnages de France paid royalties and management fees to a related Portuguese company. Following an audit for FY 2010 – 2012 the French tax authorities denied tax deductions for the payments by reference to the the arm’s length principle. The court of first instance decided in favor of the tax authorities and Rayonnages de France then filed an appeal with the CAA of Douai. Judgement of the CAA The Court of appeal upheld the decision of the court of first instance and decided in favor of the tax authorities. Excerpt “However, as the Minister points out, in order to be eligible for deduction, the management services invoiced by VJ Trans.Fer to SARL Rayonnages de France must necessarily cover tasks distinct from those relating to the day-to-day management of the latter company, which were the responsibility of Mr B. as statutory manager of SARL Rayonnages de France, it being for the latter to determine, where appropriate, the remuneration to be paid to Mr B. in this connection. However, as the Minister points out, SARL Rayonnages de France, whose allegations tend to confirm that the management services invoiced by the company VJ Trans.Fer are the same as the tasks covered by its statutory management, does not provide any evidence to justify the provision of additional or even complementary services by this company, in a situation in which it is not disputed that SARL Rayonnages de France had, in the premises rented by it at the address of its registered office, the necessary means to enable it to keep its accounts and manage its invoicing, and that it had commissioned an accounting firm to assist it. Furthermore, it is not disputed that SARL Rayonnages de France no longer employed any employees after the transfer of its production activity to Portugal in July 2009, so that, as the Minister also points out, it cannot justify any need for management services in respect of the financial years ending in 2011 and 2012. As a result, SARL Rayonnages de France cannot be regarded as providing the proof, which is incumbent on it at this stage, of the existence of a consideration, effective and favourable to its own operation, for the sums it paid, during the two tax years in question, to the company VJ Trans.Fer as fees for management services, regardless of the assessment made by the Portuguese tax authorities as to the nature of those sums and even if they did not constitute additional remuneration for Mr B…. Consequently, C.. was entitled to consider the sums paid in this respect by SARL Rayonnages de France to the company VJ Trans.Fer, established in Portugal and placed under its control, as an indirect transfer of profits. Consequently, it was right to tax these sums in the hands of the company paying them, SARL Rayonnages de France, on the basis of the aforementioned provisions of Articles 57 and 39 of the General Tax Code.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation CAA de DOUAI, 4ème chambre, 10_02_2022, 19DA01682, Inédit au recueil Lebon - Légifrance ...

In general, no intra-group service should be found for activities undertaken by one group member that merely duplicate a service that another group member is performing for itself, or that is being performed for such other group member by a third party. An exception may be where the duplication of services is only temporary, for example, where an MNE group is reorganising to centralise its management functions. Another exception would be where the duplication is undertaken to reduce the risk of a wrong business decision (e.g. by getting a second legal opinion on a subject). Any consideration of possible duplication of services needs to identify the nature of the services in detail, and the reason why the company appears to be duplicating costs contrary to efficient practices. The fact that a company performs, for example, marketing services in-house and also is charged for marketing services from a group company does not of itself determine duplication, since marketing is a broad term covering many levels of activity. Examination of information provided by the taxpayer may determine that the intra-group services are different, additional, or complementary to the activities performed in-house. The benefits test would then apply to those non-duplicative elements of the intra-group services. Some regulated sectors require control functions to be performed locally as well as on a consolidated basis by the parent; such requirements should not lead to disallowance on grounds of duplication ...

By judgment of 19 January 2021, the Administrative Court upheld an assessment for FY 2012-2017 issued by the tax authorities on the determination of the arm’s length income resulting from related party transactions. The tax assessment resulted from disallowed deductions for Intra group services provided under a general administrative, legal and financial assistance contract of 22 October 2012 Costs invoiced for the preparation of consolidated accounts Expenses related to “Technical services” for which no explanations had been provided An appeal was filed by Central Hydroelectric de Bulgari EOOD with the Supreme Administrative Court in which the company stated that the decision of the Administrative Court was incorrect. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Supreme Administrative Court partially upheld the decision of the Administrative Court. Excerpts “The present Court of Cassation finds the judgment of the ACGC valid and admissible. The argument of the applicant that the same is inadmissible is unfounded in the part in which the RA was confirmed concerning the increase of its financial result for 2012 by an expense of BGN 188 924.92 for the reason “MECAMIDES technical services”, as well as by an expense of BGN 19 724.92 for a technical expertise under invoice No 13519637/12.04.2012 issued by EDF, France. By its appeal to the ACGC, CENTRAL HYDROELECTRIC DE BULGARI EOOD has appealed against the RA in the part confirmed by the decision of the adjudicating authority. Since the act was confirmed in its entirety in the part of the established corporate tax and interest liabilities for 2012 by the decision No 367/09.03.2020 of the Director of the EITD Directorate – Sofia, the first instance court correctly held that the appeal was also lodged against this part of the RA. The appellant has not explicitly specified the amount of the corporate tax liability and interest established by the RA as a result of the above-mentioned increases in the financial result for 2012 and has not stated that it does not contest the act in this part. The arguments in the cassation appeal that the administrative court committed material breaches of the rules of court procedure, consisting, according to the appellant, in the absence of its own reasoning and failure to consider the material breaches of the administrative procedure rules in the audit proceedings alleged in the appeal, are also unfounded.“ “The decision of the ACCC contains sufficiently substantial and detailed grounds to ensure effective cassation review and to enable the party adversely affected by it to defend itself. The fact that the court considered the defendant’s legal conclusions to be correct does not mean that it did not state its own reasons.” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation Bulgaria Case SAC nr. 8331 ...

Montupet EOOD is a Bulgarian subsidiary in the French Montupet Group which specializes in the production of aluminum components for the automotive industry. In February 2016, the French Group became part of the Canadian LINAMAR Group, which specializes in the manufacture and assembly of components for the automotive industry. The French group and its production facilities (plants in France, Bulgaria, Northern Ireland, Mexico and Spain) retained their core business as part of one of LINAMAR’s five main business areas – light metal casting. Effective 01.01.2017, Montupet SAS and Montupet EOOD entered into a Services Agreement, which canceled a previous agreement of 21.12.2009 in the part concerning the corporate and management services provided. Pursuant to the new agreement, Montupet SAS undertakes to provide Montupet EOOD with business advisory services in various areas such as business strategy and development advice; financial strategy advice; legal advice; human resources strategy advice; pricing advice and price negotiations with global customers; supply chain management assistance and advice; marketing strategy advice; engineering and methods assistance and advice; technical advice; customer contact development. According to the new contract, the pricing mechanism for the services is based on a cost allocation key for the services provided. The revenue authority formed the conclusion that the majority of the services provided by the French company after 01.01.2017 were of a general administrative nature and did not differ significantly in their nature and/or volumes from the services provided to Montupet EOOD under the previous agreement of 21.12.2009. On the basis of the evidence available, no specific additional benefits for the Bulgarian company resulting from the services received in 2017 an going forward could be identified. Furthermore some of the services were not related to the activities of Montupet EOOD, but instead categorized as “shareholder activities” carried out wholly for the benefit of the parent company or other members of the group, which should not be recognised as intra-group services. The tax authorities also disregarded the evidence submitted concerning the market nature of the price of the services in question. An assessment was issued where the deductions for payments under the new service contract had been adjusted based on the arm’s length provisions. Montupet filed an appeal with the Administrative court which was dismissed. An appeal was then filed with the Supreme Administrative Court Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Supreme Administrative Court set aside the decision of the Administrative Court. Excerpts “In the light of the evidence in the case, it is established that the performance of services was agreed between Montupet SAS and Montupet EOOD The NRA Transfer Pricing Manual (fiche 12) states that intra-group services in practice refers to the centralisation of a number of administrative and management services in a single company (often the parent company), which serves the activities of all or a number of enterprises of a group of related parties selected on a regional or functional basis. The provision of such services is common in multinational companies. The concept of intra-group services covers services provided between members of the same group, in particular technical, administrative, financial, logistical, human resource management (HRM) and any other services. According to paragraph 7.5 of the OECD Transfer Pricing Manual for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations (the “OECD Manual”), the analysis of intra-group services involves the examination of two key questions: 1/ whether the intra-group services are actually performed and 2/ what the remuneration within the group for those services should be for tax purposes. Paragraph 7.6 of the OECD Guidance states that, under the arm’s length principle, whether an intra-group service is effectively performed where an activity is carried out for one or more group members by another group member will depend on whether the activity provides the group member concerned with an economic or commercial benefit to improve its trading position. This can be determined by analysing whether an independent undertaking on comparable terms would have been willing to pay for the activity if it had been carried out for it by an independent undertaking or whether it would only have carried it out with its own funds. In the instant case, it is apparent from the reasoning of the opinion rendered by the revenue authorities and the ultimate conclusion of the trial court that part of the income paid for the services constituted a disguised distribution of profits within the meaning of § 1(5)(b). “a” of the Tax Code and as such subject to taxation under the Tax Code. However, the contested decision does not set out any specific considerations in this respect, and there is no analysis of the type of services performed, the actual performance of those services, and the manner in which the remuneration for the services was priced. On the other hand, the conclusion of the revenue administration, which is fully accepted by the national court, that part of the income is not taxable under Article 195(1)(b) of the Code of Conduct. 1 of the Income Tax Act, as well as the impossibility of determining the exact amount of the income falling within the scope of Article 12 of the Income Tax Act is unjustified, as it remains unclear what part of the income earned should not be taxed under Article 195(1) of the Income Tax Act. 1 of the Income Tax Act, respectively do not fall within the scope of the DTT. In the course of the administrative appeal, as well as in the course of the court proceedings, the foreign company submitted evidence, including a list of corporate services for 2017, documentation of Linamar’s transfer pricing for fiscal 2017, a cost allocation statement, evidence of specific benefits received in relation to the services provided, as well as a statement of business trips made by employees of other companies in the Montupet Group in the city of Montupet. Ruse for 2017. Thus, the documents listed were not discussed by the first instance court, leaving unclarified the circumstances concerning the actual performance of the intra-group services, their direct and long-term effect and, accordingly, ...

Kenya Fluospar Company Ltd (KFC) had been issued an assessment related to VAT and transfer pricing – leasing of mining equipment, mining services and management services. The assessment was later set aside by the Tax Tribunal and an appeal was then filed by the tax authorities with the High Court THE JUDGEMENT The High Court dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities and decided in favour of KFC. Excerpts “B. Whether the Commissioner was right in the using Transactional Nett Margin Method (TNMM) instead of Split Profit Method (SPM) in determining how to share the income tax between KFC EPZ. 48. Rule 7 thus gives the various methods of choice, one of them being the profit split method. In this regard also, Rule 8(2) provides as follows – 8(2). A person shall apply the method most appropriate for his enterprise, having regard to the nature of the transaction, or class of related persons or function performed by such persons in relation to the transaction. 49. In my view, it follows from the above provisions that the choice of the most favourable tax assessment method is that of the tax payer and not the Commissioners. In this regard, I agree with the reasoning in the case of Unilever Kenya Ltd – vs – The Commissioner of Income Tax [2005]eKLR wherein it was held that the tax payer is entitled to choose the most favourable method to their advantage as far liability to tax is concerned. 50. I however, agree that the Commissioner can intervene where there is evidence of fraud or evasion of taxes. The Commissioner can also intervene and re-asses income tax of a taxpayer and raise additional assessments – see Pilli Management Consultants Ltd – vs – Commissioner of Income Tax – Mombasa HC Misc. Application No.525 of 2016. 51. The main issue that has arisen herein is that instead of addressing the objection raised using the selected profit margin method, the Commissioner changed to the Transactional Nett Margin Method without indicating the law that confers on the Commissioner the power to change the method. 52. Even in this appeal the Commissioner has not pointed the section of the law that gives it the right to change the choice method elected by the taxpayer. The Commissioner maintains that it has general power to change the method because they found new intangible assets of KFC. 53. First of all, there is no evidence that the mining and prospecting licences were new assets not known in the profit split method. Secondly, even if they were new intangible assets, the Commissioner would have to back his change of method with the law, which they have not. I thus find that the Commissioner had no legal power to change to a new method of Transaction Nett Margin method. The Commissioner could only use the Profit Split method chosen by the tax payer. The Commissioner was thus right in using the Transactional Nett Margin Method.” “C. Whether the alleged non benchmarked management services offered to KFC by a related non – resident company (KCMC) do in fact exist, and if so what value could be attributed to the same. 54. It is not in dispute that KFC entered into a management consultancy agreement with Kestrel Capital Management Limited (KCMC), such services to be provided upon requests. The Commissioner contends that no such management consultancy services were provided as no requests were made by KFC to KCMC for such services. KFC on the other hand maintains that they were provided with such management consultancy services by KCMC through meetings and other interactions on financial, investment and human resources matters, and relied on minutes of meetings held which were not disputed by the Commissioner. 55. In my view though indeed there is no evidence that any formal written requests for such management consultancy services was produced by KFC, there was evidence of interactions and meetings held. Such interactions and meetings between KFC and KCMC in my view were adequate proof of consultancy services provided. An adviser is an adviser and the final decision will still have to be made by the principal. If an adviser and a principal hold meetings and discuss items on the operations and management of the business affairs of the principal, in my view, that is adequate to satisfy the provision of consultancy services by the consultant. The fact that members of one corporate institution are the same in another corporate institution does not make a difference in law. As for the value to be attributed to the professional services provided, that will go according to the respective contract, and this court is not suited to determine the same with the facts placed before it.” “63. Consequently, and for the above reasons, I find that both appeals have no merits. I thus dismiss Appeal No. 2 of 2018 and No.3 of 2018 herein. Each of the parties will bear their respective costs of appeal.” Click here for other translation Kenya vs KFC ITA_3_&_2_of_2018__ Feb 2020 ...

LG Electronic India has incurred advertisement and AMP expenses aggregating to Rs.6,89,60,79,670/- for the purpose of its business. The tax authorities undertook benchmarking analysis of AMP expenses incurred by LG Electronic India applying bright line test by comparing ratio of AMP expenses to sale of LG Electronic India with that of the comparable companies and holding that any expenditure in excess of the bright line was for promotion of the brand/trade name owned by the AE, which needed to be suitably compensated by the AE. By applying bright line test, the tax authorities compared AMP expenditure incurred by LG Electronic India as percentage of total turnover at 8.01% with average AMP expenditure of 4.93% of comparable companies. Since AMP expenses incurred by LG Electronic India  as percentage of sales was more than similar percentage for comparable companies, LG Electronic India had incurred such AMP expenditure on brand promotion and development of marketing intangibles for the AE. The tax authorities also made an adjustment to the royalty rate paid to the parent for use of IP. Finally tax deductions for costs of intra-group services had been disallowed. The decision of the INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL In regards to the AMP expences the court states: “we are of the view that the Revenue has failed to demonstrate by bringing tangible material evidence on record to show that an international transaction does exist so far as AMP expenditure is concerned. Therefore, we hold that the incurring of expenditure in question does not give rise to any international transaction as per judicial discussion hereinabove and without prejudice to these findings, since the operating margins of the assessee are in excess of the selected comparable companies, no adjustment is warranted.” In regards to the royalty rate the court states: “we direct the TPO to determine the Arm’s Length royalty @ 4.05%” In regards to intra group services the court states: “we are of the opinion that once the assessee has satisfied the TNMM method i.e. the operating margins of the assessee are higher than those of the comparable companies [as mentioned elsewhere], no separate adjustment is warranted.” India vs L.G. Electronics ...

“B-Production” is a subsidiary in a US multinational group and engaged in production and sales. “B-Production” pays services fees and royalties to its US parent. Following an audit, the tax authorities issued an assessment where deductions for these costs had been reduced which in turn resulted in additional taxabel income. An appeal was filed by “B-Production” with the Administrative court which in a judgement of June 2015 was rejected. An appeal was then filed by “B-Production” with the Supreme Administrative Court. In the appeal “B-Production” contested the findings of the Administrative Court that there was a hidden distribution of profits by means of the payment of management fees and duplication (overlapping) of the services at issue under the management contract and the other two agreements between the B-Production and the parent company. B-Production further argued that the evidence in the case refutes the conclusions in the tax assessment and the contested decision that the services rendered did not confer an economic benefit and in addition argues that the costs of royalties and the costs of engineering and control services under the other two contracts are not a formative element of the invoices for management services, a fact which was not considered by the court. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Supreme Administrative Court decided in favour of the tax authorities and dismissed the appeal of B-Production as unfounded. Excerpts “The dispute in the case concerned the recognition of expenses for intra-group services. The NRA Transfer Pricing Manual (Fact Sheet 12) states that intra-group services in practice refers to the centralisation of a number of administrative and management services in a single company (often the parent company), which serves the activities of all or a number of enterprises of a group of related parties selected on a regional or functional basis. The provision of such services is common in multinational companies. The concept of intra-group services covers services provided between members of the same group, in particular technical, administrative, financial, logistical, human resource management (HRM) and any other services. In the present case, the costs in question relate to a contract for the provision of management services dated 26.11.2002, paid by the subsidiary [company], registered in the Republic of Bulgaria, to the parent company, [company], registered in the USA. The OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations (‘the OECD Guidelines’) should therefore be taken into account in the analysis of those costs and, accordingly, in the interpretation and application of the substantive law. According to paragraph 7.5 of the OECD Guidelines, the analysis of intra-group services involves the examination of two key questions: 1/ whether the intra-group services are actually performed and 2/ what the remuneration within the group for those services should be for tax purposes. In the present case, the dispute in the case relates to the answer to the first question, since it is apparent from the reasoning of the audit report, the revenue authorities and the ultimate conclusion of the court of first instance that the services did not confer an economic benefit on the domestic company and constituted a disguised distribution of profits within the meaning of section 1(5)(b) of the Act. “a” of the Tax Code. Therefore, the arguments in the cassation appeal for material breaches of the rules of court procedure – lack of instructions concerning the collection of evidence related to the amount of the price of the intra-group service and the allocation of the burden of proof to establish this fact – are irrelevant to the subject matter of the dispute. Paragraph 7.6 of the OECD Guidelines states that, according to the arm’s length principle, whether an intra-group service is actually performed when an activity is carried out for one or more group members by another group member will depend on whether the activity provides the group member concerned with an economic or commercial advantage to improve its commercial position. This can be determined by analysing whether an independent undertaking would, on comparable terms, be willing to pay for the activity if it were carried out for it by an independent undertaking or whether it would only have carried it out with its own funds. It is correct in principle, as stated in the appeal in cassation, that the analysis of intra-group services and their recognition for tax purposes is based on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. For example, the OECD Guidelines lists activities which, according to the criterion in point 7.6, constitute shareholding activities. According to paragraph 7.10, b. “b” of the OECD Guidance, expenses related to the accounting requirements of the parent company, including consolidation for financial statements, are defined as such. The evidence in this case established beyond a reasonable doubt that the management services covered by the contract at issue in this case included the compensation of a responsible financial and accounting manager, including cash flow planning and reporting, preparation of monthly, quarterly and annual reports (American Accounting Standards accounting. These activities, which there is no dispute that they were performed, fall within the definition of Section 7.10 for “shareholder activities.” The remaining activities included in management services, including the costs associated with the use of the software programs referred to in the expert report, are imposed by the parent company’s requirements for control and accountability of the subsidiary under the three sets of activities – managing director, production and finance. There is no merit in the objection in the cassation appeal that the management contract services do not duplicate the costs of the other two contracts. It is established from the conclusion of the FTSE that the costs of engineering and control services and royalties (know-how and patent) are not a formative element of the invoices for management services. The conclusion of the experts was based only on the fact that separate contracts had been concluded for the individual costs and not on an analysis of the elements that formed the fees. According to Annex 6 to the expert report, ...

In general, no intra-group service should be found for activities undertaken by one group member that merely duplicate a service that another group member is performing for itself, or that is being performed for such other group member by a third party. An exception may be where the duplication of services is only temporary, for example, where an MNE group is reorganising to centralise its management functions. Another exception would be where the duplication is undertaken to reduce the risk of a wrong business decision (e.g. by getting a second legal opinion on a subject). Any consideration of possible duplication of services needs to identify the nature of the services in detail, and the reason why the company appears to be duplicating costs contrary to efficient practices. The fact that a company performs, for example, marketing services in-house and also is charged for marketing services from a group company does not of itself determine duplication, since marketing is a broad term covering many levels of activity. Examination of information provided by the taxpayer may determine that the intra-group services are different, additional, or complementary to the activities performed in-house. The benefits test would then apply to those non-duplicative elements of the intra-group services. Some regulated sectors require control functions to be performed locally as well as on a consolidated basis by the parent; such requirements should not lead to disallowance on grounds of duplication ...

The tax authority found that the taxpayer had not provided credible documentation or evidence from which it could be indisputably established that the services were actually provided between related parties and, therefore, did not include the costs of those services as a tax deductible expense under Article 16 ZDDPO-2. Judgment of the Court The Administrative Court agreed with the reasons given by the tax authority of first instance for its decision, namely in the treatment of the costs of services charged between related parties. Excerpt in English “The Court considers that the contested decision is correct and in accordance with the law relied on. The Court also agrees with the grounds on which the decision is based by the tax authority at first instance and with the grounds on which the appeal is rejected by the defendant. The pleas in law and defences are identical in substance to those raised in the appeal, and the Court therefore refers to and does not repeat the grounds of the contested decision and the decision on appeal (Article 71 Causes of Justice). Pursuant to Article 11(3) of the ITA-1, unless otherwise provided by that law, the income and expenditure recognised for the purpose of determining profits shall be the income and expenditure recognised in the profit and loss account or in the annual report corresponding to the profit and loss account and showing the income, expenditure and result, on the basis of the law and in accordance with the accounting standards established by that law. For the purpose of determining profit, the expenditure necessary to obtain the revenue taxed under this Law shall be recognised. However, expenses which, in the light of the facts and circumstances, are not a direct condition for carrying on an activity and do not result from the carrying on of an activity are not such expenses (Art. 20 ZDDPO-1). Costs of services are recognised on the basis of documents proving that they are normally related to the economic benefits arising (SRS 14.10). In determining the taxable person’s expenditure, transfer prices with related parties for assets, including intangible assets, and services are taken into account, in accordance with Article 12(2) of the ITA-1, but not more than to the extent that the expenditure is determined by reference to comparable market prices. Under Article 20(1) of the Regulations, a related party service is deemed to have been provided if the unrelated party would have been willing to purchase the service from another unrelated party or if the unrelated party would have been willing to provide the service itself. The arm’s length principle is defined in Article 9 of the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and Wealth, which is the basis for the bilateral tax treaties concluded. It is also the basis for the OECD Guidelines, from which the domestic transfer pricing regime is derived. The tax authorities are therefore also justified in assessing the tax deductibility of expenditure in the light of its consistency with the OECD Guidelines. In the light of the above, two questions arise in the analysis of transfer pricing for intra-group services. The first is whether the intra-group services were actually provided, and the second is what price for such intra-group services would be consistent for tax purposes with the arm’s length principle (point 7.7 of the OECD Guidelines). The tax authority’s request for documentation demonstrating that the services charged for were actually rendered to the applicant, and the nature and extent of those services, is justified by the provisions of the ITA-1 and the SRS and ITA-2. There is no dispute in the case that the applicant did not submit the requested documentation in the tax proceedings. It has only substantiated the amount of the cost mark-up charged, but has not demonstrated the volume and nature of the services allegedly provided to it by the group companies. The alleged compliance of the costs charged with the arm’s length principle is for that reason not demonstrated. The tax authority further substantiates the finding of inconsistency of the transfer prices by the fact that the applicant had no influence on the price of the services provided by the group, that the allocation key established for each type of service is inappropriate and that there is duplication of services. The applicant claims otherwise, that there is no duplication of services, but does not prove that fact in the absence of any evidence of services provided by related companies. The allegations concerning the services allegedly provided to the applicant by the individual companies in the group and the calculation of the average monthly costs, which are repeated by the applicant in its application, do not, for the reasons given by the appellate authority, also do not, in the Court’s view, prove that the services were actually provided. In the light of the above, since the pleas in law are unfounded and the Court of First Instance has not found any irregularities of which the Office is aware, the Court of First Instance dismisses the action as unfounded on the basis of Article 63(1) of the Causes of Action Act.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation UPRS_sodba_I_U_1184_2012-16.04.2013 ...