Following an audit of “Raw Materials Ltd” an assessment was issued by the tax authority regarding pricing of intra-group transactions in FY 2018 and 2019. At issue was the pricing of intra group sales and purschases. A complaint was filed by “Raw Materials Ltd” with the Dispute Resolution Board claming that the tax authority had misapplied the chosen transfer pricing method. Decision of the Board The Board upheld the assessment of the tax authorities and rejected the appeal of “Raw Materials Ltd”. Excerpt in English “Because the tax authority, taking into account the activity, the organisation and the specific characteristics of the audited company itself, chose as more reliable the internal comparables relating to sales to third independent companies, because the internal comparables are more reliable due to their internal nature. In addition, it is ensured that identical accounting practices are followed in relation to the cost structure (….). Moreover, internal comparables have a more direct and closer relationship with intra-group transactions, in line with the OECD Guidelines (last updated version – July 2010), which in para. 3.27: “Step 4 of the formal process described in paragraph 3.4 is to review internal comparables that may exist. Internal comparables may have a more direct and closer relationship to the controlled transaction than external comparables. The financial analysis may be easier and more reliable as it will be based on identical accounting standards and practices between the internally comparable transaction and the controlled transaction. In addition, access to information on internally comparable transactions may be more comprehensive and less costly.” As stated in the relevant audit report, the applicant company did not sufficiently justify in the documentation file the rejection of the internal comparative sales data to third independent undertakings, and no further evidence was submitted at the appeal stage to substantiate that claim. As regards the applicant company’s claim that it sold products with a loss due to defects, as is apparent from the relevant report, the audit showed that the result of that transaction was profitable. Because the applicant’s claim that the audit has unjustifiably changed the treatment of the same tax subject matter in relation to previous audits of the financial years 2010-2011 and 2015-2017 is unfounded as, on the one hand, according to the principles of accounting there is independence of the financial years and, on the other hand, the table relied on by the applicant itself shows that the circumstances in the years under audit are different as the percentage of its turnover relating to sales to affiliated undertakings has varied significantly. Because according to Article 28 of the Code of Taxation: “1. The Tax Administration shall notify the taxpayer in writing of a note of findings containing the results of the tax audit and the provisional corrective tax assessment, which must be fully reasoned. The taxpayer may request to receive copies of the documents on which the corrective tax assessment is based. The taxpayer shall have the opportunity to express its views in writing on the provisional corrective tax assessment within twenty (20) days of the written notification. 2. The Tax Administration shall issue the final act of corrective determination of the tax, within one (1) month from the date of receipt of the taxpayer’s views or, in case the taxpayer does not submit his views, from the expiry of the deadline specified in par. 1. The final act of corrective tax assessment shall be issued on the basis of an audit report prepared by the Tax Administration. The audit report shall contain a detailed and reasoned account of the facts, data and provisions taken into account by the Tax Administration in determining the tax. The final tax assessment notice together with the audit report shall be communicated to the taxpayer.” Because Article 65 of the Tax Code states that: “In the event of a challenge to an act of assessment of tax in an appeal, the taxpayer or any other person making such a challenge shall bear the burden of proving that the act of assessment of tax is defective.” Since the audit complied with the provisions of Article 28 of the Tax Code and prepared the audit report no…… which it delivered to the applicant company with the provisional determination acts attached. The applicant responded to the abovementioned Memorandum of Acknowledgments by means of the letter No……Replying Memorandum. The audit examined the allegations set out in that memorandum, the positions of which are set out on pages 122 to 129 of the relevant audit report, and then proceeded to adopt the contested definitive acts. Consequently, the allegation of infringement of the right to a prior hearing. Since, in the present appeal, the applicant puts forward allegations essentially similar to those made during the audit, on which the audit has taken a position in the relevant report (see pages 122 to 129 of the relevant audit report), and does not submit any new evidence to alter the findings. Because the findings of the audit, as recorded in the tax division for large tax payers’s audit report, on which the contested acts are based, are considered to be well-founded, acceptable and fully reasoned.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation gr-ded-2023-2129e_en_ath-2129e_2023 ...

Determining the degree of comparability between controlled and uncontrolled transactions requires a comparison of the significant economic conditions that could affect the prices that would be charged or paid, or the profit that would be earned in each of the transactions. These factors include – (A) The similarity of geographic markets; (B) The relative size of each market, and the extent of the overall economic development in each market; (C) The level of the market (e.g., wholesale, retail, etc.); (D) The relevant market shares for the products, properties, or services transferred or provided; (E) The location-specific costs of the factors of production and distribution; (F) The extent of competition in each market with regard to the property or services under review; (G) The economic condition of the particular industry, including whether the market is in contraction or expansion; and (H) The alternatives realistically available to the buyer and seller ...

DELSEY España distributes and sells suitcases and other travel accessories of the DESLEY brand on the Spanish market and belongs to the French multinational group of the same name. The Spanish distributor had declared losses for FY 2005-2010 and was subject to a transfer pricing audit for FY 2011 to 2014. Based on the audit, the tax authorities concluded that the losses in FY 2005-2010 was a result of controlled transactions not being priced at arm’s length. The same was concluded for FY 2011 and 2012. The CUP method and RPM method applied by the taxpayer was found to be inappropriate and was replaced with the TNMM by the tax authorities. An appeal was filed by Delsey España S.A. Judgement of the Court The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the assessment. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation Spain vs Delsey STSJ_CAT_1467_2022 ORG1 ...

Currency differences are another potentially important factor. Economic factors such as growth rate, inflation rate, and the volatility of exchange rates, mean that otherwise similar financial instruments issued in different currencies may have different prices. Moreover, prices for financial instruments in the same currency may vary across financial markets or countries due to regulations such as interest rate controls, exchange rate controls, foreign exchange restrictions and other legal and practical restrictions on financial market access ...

Macroeconomic trends such as central bank lending rates or interbank reference rates, and financial market events like a credit crisis, can affect prices. In this regard, the precise timing of the issue of a financial instrument in the primary market or the selection of comparable data in the secondary market can therefore be very significant in terms of comparability. For instance, it is not likely that multiple year data on loan issuances will provide useful comparables. The opposite is more likely to be true, i.e. that the closer in timing a comparable loan issuance is to the issuance of the tested transaction, the less the likelihood of different economic factors prevailing, notwithstanding that particular events can cause rapid changes in lending markets ...

The prices of financial instruments may vary substantially on the basis of underlying economic circumstances, for example, across different currencies, geographic locations, local regulations, the business sector of the borrower and the timing of the transaction ...

To achieve comparability requires that the markets in which the independent and associated enterprises operate do not have differences that have a material effect on price or that appropriate adjustments can be made ...

The “broad-based analysis” is an essential step in the comparability analysis. It can be defined as an analysis of the industry, competition, economic and regulatory factors and other elements that affect the taxpayer and its environment, but not yet within the context of looking at the specific transactions in question. This step helps understand the conditions in the taxpayer’s controlled transaction as well as those in the uncontrolled transactions to be compared, in particular the economic circumstances of the transaction (see paragraphs 1.130-1.133) ...

In cases where similar controlled transactions are carried out by an MNE group in several countries and where the economic circumstances in these countries are in effect reasonably homogeneous, it may be appropriate for this MNE group to rely on a multiple-country comparability analysis to support its transfer pricing policy towards this group of countries. But there are also numerous situations where an MNE group offers significantly different ranges of products or services in each country, and/or performs significantly different functions in each of these countries (using significantly different assets and assuming significantly different risks), and/or where its business strategies and/or economic circumstances are found to be significantly different. In these latter situations, the recourse to a multiple-country approach may reduce reliability ...

The geographic market is another economic circumstance that should be identified. The identification of the relevant market is a factual question. For a number of industries, large regional markets encompassing more than one country may prove to be reasonably homogeneous, while for others, differences among domestic markets (or even within domestic markets) are very significant ...

The existence of a cycle (e.g. economic, business, or product cycle) is one of the economic circumstances that should be identified. See paragraph 3.77 in relation to the use of multiple year data where there are cycles ...

Arm’s length prices may vary across different markets even for transactions involving the same property or services; therefore, to achieve comparability requires that the markets in which the independent and associated enterprises operate do not have differences that have a material effect on price or that appropriate adjustments can be made. As a first step, it is essential to identify the relevant market or markets taking account of available substitute goods or services. Economic circumstances that may be relevant to determining market comparability include the geographic location; the size of the markets; the extent of competition in the markets and the relative competitive positions of the buyers and sellers; the availability (risk thereof) of substitute goods and services; the levels of supply and demand in the market as a whole and in particular regions, if relevant; consumer purchasing power; the nature and extent of government regulation of the market; costs of production, including the costs of land, labour, and capital; transport costs; the level of the market (e.g. retail or wholesale); the date and time of transactions; and so forth. The facts and circumstances of the particular case will determine whether differences in economic circumstances have a material effect on price and whether reasonably accurate adjustments can be made to eliminate the effects of such differences. More detailed guidance on the importance in a comparability analysis of the features of local markets, especially local market features that give rise to location savings, is provided in Section D.6 of this chapter ...

Currency differences are another potentially important factor. Economic factors such as growth rate, inflation rate, and the volatility of exchange rates, mean that otherwise similar financial instruments issued in different currencies may have different prices. Moreover, prices for financial instruments in the same currency may vary across financial markets or countries due to regulations such as interest rate controls, exchange rate controls, foreign exchange restrictions and other legal and practical restrictions on financial market access ...

Macroeconomic trends such as central bank lending rates or interbank reference rates, and financial market events like a credit crisis, can affect prices. In this regard, the precise timing of the issue of a financial instrument in the primary market or the selection of comparable data in the secondary market can therefore be very significant in terms of comparability. For instance, it is not likely that multiple year data on loan issuances will provide useful comparables. The opposite is more likely to be true, i.e. that the closer in timing a comparable loan issuance is to the issuance of the tested transaction, the less the likelihood of different economic factors prevailing, notwithstanding that particular events can cause rapid changes in lending markets ...

The prices of financial instruments may vary substantially on the basis of underlying economic circumstances, for example, across different currencies, geographic locations, local regulations, the business sector of the borrower and the timing of the transaction ...

To achieve comparability requires that the markets in which the independent and associated enterprises operate do not have differences that have a material effect on price or that appropriate adjustments can be made ...

The “broad-based analysis” is an essential step in the comparability analysis. It can be defined as an analysis of the industry, competition, economic and regulatory factors and other elements that affect the taxpayer and its environment, but not yet within the context of looking at the specific transactions in question. This step helps understand the conditions in the taxpayer’s controlled transaction as well as those in the uncontrolled transactions to be compared, in particular the economic circumstances of the transaction (see paragraphs 1.110-1.113) ...

In cases where similar controlled transactions are carried out by an MNE group in several countries and where the economic circumstances in these countries are in effect reasonably homogeneous, it may be appropriate for this MNE group to rely on a multiple-country comparability analysis to support its transfer pricing policy towards this group of countries. But there are also numerous situations where an MNE group offers significantly different ranges of products or services in each country, and/or performs significantly different functions in each of these countries (using significantly different assets and assuming significantly different risks), and/or where its business strategies and/or economic circumstances are found to be significantly different. In these latter situations, the recourse to a multiple-country approach may reduce reliability ...

The geographic market is another economic circumstance that should be identified. The identification of the relevant market is a factual question. For a number of industries, large regional markets encompassing more than one country may prove to be reasonably homogeneous, while for others, differences among domestic markets (or even within domestic markets) are very significant ...

The existence of a cycle (e.g. economic, business, or product cycle) is one of the economic circumstances that should be identified. See paragraph 3.77 in relation to the use of multiple year data where there are cycles ...

Arm’s length prices may vary across different markets even for transactions involving the same property or services; therefore, to achieve comparability requires that the markets in which the independent and associated enterprises operate do not have differences that have a material effect on price or that appropriate adjustments can be made. As a first step, it is essential to identify the relevant market or markets taking account of available substitute goods or services. Economic circumstances that may be relevant to determining market comparability include the geographic location; the size of the markets; the extent of competition in the markets and the relative competitive positions of the buyers and sellers; the availability (risk thereof) of substitute goods and services; the levels of supply and demand in the market as a whole and in particular regions, if relevant; consumer purchasing power; the nature and extent of government regulation of the market; costs of production, including the costs of land, labour, and capital; transport costs; the level of the market (e.g. retail or wholesale); the date and time of transactions; and so forth. The facts and circumstances of the particular case will determine whether differences in economic circumstances have a material effect on price and whether reasonably accurate adjustments can be made to eliminate the effects of such differences. More detailed guidance on the importance in a comparability analysis of the features of local markets, especially local market features that give rise to location savings, is provided in Section D.6 of this chapter ...

In the case of General Electric Capital, Canada, the issue was if a 1% guarantee fee  paid by General Electric Capital Canada Inc. to its AAA-rated US parent company satisfied the arm’s length test. The Canadian tax administration argued  that implicit support resulted in General Electric Canada having a AAA credit rating, so that the guarantee provided by the US parent had no value. Taxpayer argued that the 1% guarantee fee did not exceed arm’s length pricing and that implicit support from the US parent should be ignored since it stemmed from the non-arm’s length relationship. The Tax Court agreed with the tax administration that implicit support should be taken into account and applied a “yield approach,” comparing the interest rate the Canadian company would have paid with and without the guarantee. The Tax Court found that credit rating of the Canadian company – with implicit support but without the guarantee – was at most BBB-/BB+ and the 1% guarantee was arm’s length. The Federal Court of Appeal approved of both the Tax Court’s yield approach and its conclusion that the guarantee fee did not exceed an arm’s length price. On the issue of implicit support the Court concluded that under the arm´s length principle implicit support had to be taken into account . Determining arm’s length pricing “involves taking into account all the circumstances which bear on the price whether they arise from the relationship or otherwise.” Hence, Circumstances that are themselves inherently non-arm’s length in nature must also be considered. The relevant question is what an arm’s length guarantor would charge to provide a guarantee to a comparable subsidiary of a comparable AAA-rated US parent Company. Comparing prices of loans without regard to implicit support from the US parent, fails to recognize all of the relevant economic circumstances of the controlled transaction. Canada-vs-General-Electric-2010-federal-Court-of-Appeal-FCA-344 Canada_2010fca290 ...