One question that arises in cases where the net profit indicator is weighted against sales is how to account for rebates and discounts that may be granted to customers by the taxpayer or the comparables. Depending on the accounting standards, rebates and discounts may be treated as a reduction of sales revenue or as an expense. Similar difficulties can arise in relation to foreign exchange gains or losses. Where such items materially affect the comparison, the key is to compare like with like and follow the same accounting principles for the taxpayer and for the comparables ...

A net profit indicator of net profit divided by sales, or net profit margin, is frequently used to determine the arm’s length price of purchases from an associated enterprise for resale to independent customers. In such cases, the sales figure at the denominator should be the re-sales of items purchased in the controlled transaction under review. Sales revenue that is derived from uncontrolled activities (purchase from independent parties for re-sale to independent parties) should not be included in the determination or testing of the remuneration for controlled transactions, unless the uncontrolled transactions are such that they do not materially affect the comparison; and/or the controlled and uncontrolled transactions are so closely linked that they cannot be evaluated adequately on a separate basis. One example of the latter situation can sometimes occur in relation to uncontrolled after-sales services or sales of spare parts provided by a distributor to independent end-user customers where they are closely linked to controlled purchase transactions by the distributor for resale to the same independent end-user customers, for instance because the service activity is performed using rights or other assets that are granted under the distribution arrangement. See also discussion of portfolio approaches in paragraph 3.10 ...

The SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION is a multinational group of Japanese origin active in among others areas, production and sale of computer products. The group is present in Spain, EPSON IBÉRICA, but has its European HQ in the Netherlands, EPSON EUROPE BV. The main shareholder and sole director of EPSON IBÉRICA S.A.U. was initially Mr. Jose Augusto. However, following a capital increase on 24 April 1986, EPSON IBÉRICA SAU became the subsidiary of the EPSON Group in Spain and Mr. Jose Augusto became a member of its Board of Directors. Mr. Jose Augusto held positions in both EPSON IBERICA and the Dutch parent company EPSON EUROPA until he left on 31 August 2007. As part of his emoluments, EPSON IBERICA made contributions to a pension plan since 1999, totalling EUR 2,842,047.55, including an extraordinary contribution of EUR 2,200,000.00, which was agreed by its Board of Directors on 22 September 2004 and paid to the insurance company managing the pension plan on 25 May 2005, and another contribution of EUR 132,074.67 on 31 July 2007, which was passed on to the Dutch parent company. The accounting expenses entered in the accounts by EPSON IBERICA in this connection amounted to EUR 2 709 972.88 (EUR 2 842 047.55 – EUR 132 074.67), which the entity entered off the books and which, consequently, were not deducted fiscally. In particular, the accounting expense computed in FY 2004 and 2005 for the amount of the commitment assumed (2.2 million euros) was not deducted in that year, in accordance with the provisions of Article 13.3 “Provision for risk and expenses”, of the Consolidated Text of the Corporate Income Tax Law However, when the beneficiary (Mr. Jose Augusto) of these contributions receives the amounts from the retirement plan, the corresponding contributions made are deductible at EPSON IBERICA. In 2009, Mr. Jose Augusto exercised his right to receive the benefits provided for in that pension plan and, therefore, the entity made a negative adjustment of EUR 2,709,972.89 in its tax return for that year, an adjustment which, in the Inspectorate’s opinion, should have amounted to only EUR 473,477.59, since not all the contributions made to the aforementioned pension plan were deductible. The contributions made after that date, which amounted to 263,174.45 euros (10 % of 2,631,744.41 euros). The remaining 90 % of the contribution from 1 January 2002 is deemed to have been made by the parent company in the Netherlands, EPSON EUROPE. – The settlement agreement acknowledges that the adjustment should have been bilateral, since the expenditure actually occurred, but considers this provision inapplicable because EPSON EUROPA is resident in the Netherlands, and Article 9 of Spain’s double taxation agreement with the Netherlands does not provide for bilateral adjustment. – In its tax return for 2010, EPSON IBERICA offset in full, for an amount of EUR 1 359 101.07, the negative tax base which it had claimed to have from the previous year (2009), but which it no longer had following the audit carried out. EPSON IBERICA did not agree with the aforementioned settlement agreements and the imposition of the penalty relating to the FY 2009 and 2010 and filed economic-administrative claims against them before the Central Economic-Administrative Court. The claims were resolved by the Central Economic-Administrative Tribunal on 4 February 2016, rejecting them. EPSON’s legal representatives then filed a contentious-administrative appeal against the above decision, which was processed under case number 314/2016 before the Second Section of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the National High Court, and a judgment rejecting the appeal was handed down on 22 February 2018. The appellant filed a writ requesting a supplement to the previous judgment, and the Chamber issued an order on 14 May 2018, in which it declared that there was no need to supplement the judgment. The High Court also decided in favour of the tax authorities, and this decision was then appealed by EPSON to the Supreme Tribunal. At issue before the Supreme Tribunal was whether or not the tax authorities should have taken into account the disallowed deduction – resulting in a higher income – when determining the arm’s length remuneration of EPSON IBÉRICA which was based on the transactional net margin method (TNMM). Judgement of the Court The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of EPSON IBÉRICA and decided in favour of the tax authorities. Excerpt “The key issue in the present appeal is, in fact, the apportionment of costs between EPSON EUROPA and EPSON IBERICA. The judgment under appeal has chosen to consider the apportionment made by the tax inspectorate to be correct, in the light of the circumstances and the evidence in the proceedings. It is not an arbitrary assessment; it is coherent and reasonable and, therefore, we must abide by its result. The assessments under appeal are therefore in accordance with the law, and the adjustment sought by EPSON IBERICA is not appropriate. Lastly, there is nothing to be said in relation to the penalties, since that issue is not covered by the order for admission. In view of the foregoing, in circumstances such as those described, the answer to the appeal is as follows: ‘the Tax Inspectorate is not obliged to take into consideration the transfer pricing policy of the corporate group, in particular where it is based on the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), when regularising transactions involving companies in the same multinational group, where it is not possible to make the relevant bilateral adjustment, in order to proceed to a full regularisation of the taxpayer’s situation.” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation Spain v Epson STS_1111_2021 ...

The court ruled that, based on all the findings in the proceedings (the plaintiff did not provide documentation, did not follow the tax authority’s instructions), the tax authority had the possibility to establish the tax base by assessment pursuant to Article 68 of ZDATP-2. The tax authority concluded that the application of the cost plus method was not applicable in the specific case and decided to apply the transactional net margin method. The so-called primary adjustment still did not restore the situation as it would have been if the transactions had been carried out on an arm’s length basis. Therefore, the tax authority correctly made a secondary adjustment in the form of a disguised profit payment Click here for English translation Click here for other translation UPRS_sodba_I_U_328_2016-04.10.2016 ...

One question that arises in cases where the net profit indicator is weighted against sales is how to account for rebates and discounts that may be granted to customers by the taxpayer or the comparables. Depending on the accounting standards, rebates and discounts may be treated as a reduction of sales revenue or as an expense. Similar difficulties can arise in relation to foreign exchange gains or losses. Where such items materially affect the comparison, the key is to compare like with like and follow the same accounting principles for the taxpayer and for the comparables ...

A net profit indicator of net profit divided by sales, or net profit margin, is frequently used to determine the arm’s length price of purchases from an associated enterprise for resale to independent customers. In such cases, the sales figure at the denominator should be the re-sales of items purchased in the controlled transaction under review. Sales revenue that is derived from uncontrolled activities (purchase from independent parties for re-sale to independent parties) should not be included in the determination or testing of the remuneration for controlled transactions, unless the uncontrolled transactions are such that they do not materially affect the comparison; and/or the controlled and uncontrolled transactions are so closely linked that they cannot be evaluated adequately on a separate basis. One example of the latter situation can sometimes occur in relation to uncontrolled after-sales services or sales of spare parts provided by a distributor to independent end-user customers where they are closely linked to controlled purchase transactions by the distributor for resale to the same independent end-user customers, for instance because the service activity is performed using rights or other assets that are granted under the distribution arrangement. See also discussion of portfolio approaches in paragraph 3.10 ...

At issue were tax deductions for expenses related to assets and expenses for services paid by SC A SRL to a related party, C SpA Italy. Following an audit the tax authorities had issued an assessment, where certain costs were considered non deductible and where the cost of services had been determined by applying the transactional net margin method (TNMM). The assessment was brought to the courts by SC A SRL. Judgement of Supreme Court The Supreme Court found the appeal of SC A SRL unfounded and decided in favor of the tax authorities. Excerpt “As regards the criticisms made by the appellant concerning the use of the net transaction margin method used by the tax authorities and held by the judgment delivered by the court of first instance to be correct, the Supreme Court considers them to be unfounded. As is apparent from the evidence adduced in the case, during the period examined by the tax inspection bodies, it was found that the transactions carried out by the appellant were transactions between related persons and that the price at which goods were transferred in transactions between related persons was the transfer price. Since the appellant submitted an incomplete record of the transfer prices charged in relation to the affiliated person C Spa Italia, in the period 2007-2010, without justifying the transfer prices charged, the tax authorities proceeded in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of OMFP No 222/2008 to adjust the transfer prices charged between the two companies pursuant to the provisions of Article 11(1) and (2) of Law No 571/2003 on the Fiscal Code, as subsequently amended and supplemented. The trial judge correctly rejected the conclusions contained in the expert’s report with regard to the method of the net transaction margin used by the tax inspection bodies, the court of judicial review, in its analysis of that ground of appeal, points out that the purpose of the forensic technical expert’s report is to provide the court with an expert opinion on the documentation under examination, but the assessment of the evidence is made on the basis of the judge’s reasoning by correlating it with the other evidence adduced in the case and analysing it in the light of the legal rules applicable in the matter. In that context, the High Court finds that the criticisms made by the appellant-appellant in relation to the method of the net trading margin used which led to the adjustment of the income from operations in relation to the affiliated company C Spa Italia in the amount of 35 246 585 lei are in fact unfounded, since the judgment under appeal correctly held that the contested administrative and fiscal acts by which additional tax liabilities were established representing income tax with ancillary charges for the period under review are lawful and well founded. Having regard to all those considerations, the High Court, pursuant to Article 20(1) of Law No 554/2004 and Article 312(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, will dismiss the appeal brought by the applicant, company A SRL, as unfounded. ” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ROM Jurisprudence 2651-2016 ...

Wx-Distributor (a subsidiary of the Wx-group i.d.F. Bw.) is responsible for the distribution of household appliances in Austria. It is wholly owned by Z. Deliveries to Wx-Distributor are made by production companies of the Group located in Germany, Italy, France, Slovakia, Poland and Sweden with which it has concluded distribution agreements to determine transfer prices. On average Wx-Distributor had been loss-making in FY 2001-2005. Following an tax audit, the intra-group transfer prices were re-determined for the years 2001 to 2004 by the tax authorities. It was determined that the transfer prices in two years were not within the arm’s length range. The review of the tax authorities had revealed a median EBIT margin of 1.53% and on that basis the operating margin for 2001 were set at 1.5%. For the following years the margin was set at 0.9% due to changed functions (outsourcing of accounts receivable, closure of half the IT department). The resulting adjustments were treated as hidden distribution of profits to the parent company. An appeal was filed by Wx-Distributor. Judgement of the Court The Court decided predominantly in favour of the tax authorities. Excerpts “The functions and risks described above do not justify distribution agreements that do not ensure that the applicant, as a limited risk distributor, will not be able to achieve an overall (cumulative) positive operating result over a reasonable (foreseeable) period of time. This is also the case if this would be associated with higher losses for the independent production companies.” “In the view of the UFS, the use of the median in the event that the EBIT margin achieved is outside the range is to be applied in the present case because, according to the study, there is no ‘highly reliable’ range (cf. Loukota/Jirousek comments on the criticism of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2010 ÖStZ 2011) due to comparability deficiencies. Insofar as the applicant assumes that the correction of the EBIT margin to the median value constitutes an impermissible punitive taxation and possibly seeks an adjustment to the lower bandwidth value, whereby it recognisably refers to a decision of the BFH of 17 October 2001 I R 103/00, according to which an estimate is based on the upper or lower value of the bandwidth of arm’s length transfer prices, which is more favourable for the taxpayer. In addition to the existing comparability deficiencies, which in themselves justify an adjustment to the median, reference should also be made to the transfer pricing study by Baker&McKenzie from 2005, which was also submitted by the applicant. It may be true that transfer prices have to be fixed in advance, but in the case at hand no transfer prices were fixed per transaction carried out; instead, distribution agreements had been concluded in unchanged form since 1999 and the arm’s length nature of these agreements was justified by the results of comparative company studies. From the above point of view, it is permissible to use a study (Baker&McKenzie) for the further assessment of the arm’s length nature of the EBIT margin, which was prepared at a time (here 31 December 2005) that follows the period in which the net returns to be assessed were generated (2001 to 2005), but which refers to data material that originates from this period (2002 to 2004). This is because a comparison of the net returns achieved in the period under review (2001 to 2005) with comparable enterprises based on data from the years 1996 to 1999 can at best be used for planning purposes, but subsequent significant developments in the period under review (e.g. economic downturns…) are not (or cannot be) taken into account. According to Baker&McKenzie, the data material used in this process led to the result of comparable net yields with a median of 2.3% and a quartile range between 1.3% and 3.9%. An appendix to this study, which was prepared especially for the company and deals with the special features of inventory adjustment, accounts receivable and accounts payable, shows a comparable median EBIT return for the company of 2.6% with a quartile range of 1.5% to 4.1%. The values shown were achieved by comparable companies in the audit period and are consistently above the adapted median according to the transfer pricing study by Ernst & Young, which is why the adjustment to the lower range requested by the applicant is also unjustified for this reason. If the UFS bases its assessment of the arm’s length transfer price on the Ernst & Young study and uses the median achieved there, this is because it follows the applicant’s argumentation regarding the price determination required in advance and for this reason bases its considerations regarding comparable net returns on the modified Ernst & Young transfer price study. There are no other particular influencing factors that would make an adjustment of this study necessary. In view of the above considerations, the UFS assumes that the median net return of 1.49% determined in the modified comparative study by Ernst & Young submitted by the applicant is appropriate and should be applied for the audit period.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation Austria vs Distributor UFS 30-7-2012 RV-2515-W-0960673-1 ...