“Electric Component Manufacturing KtF” is a Hungarian subsidiary of a global group that distributes electronic components in more than 150 countries worldwide. The tax authorities had conducted a comprehensive tax audit of the Hungarian company for the period from 1 October 2016 to 30 September 2017, which resulted in an assessment of additional taxable income. The transfer pricing issues identified by the tax authorities were the remuneration received by the Hungarian company for its manufacturing activities and excessive interest payments to a group company in Luxembourg. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and ordered the court to conduct new proceedings and issue a new decision. In its decision, the Court of Appeal had relied on an expert opinion, which the Supreme Court found to to be questionable, because there were serious doubt as to its correctness. Therefore, according to the order issued by the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal may not undertake a professional assessment of the expert opinion that goes beyond the interpretation of the applicable legislation, nor may it review the expert opinion in the new proceedings in the absence of expertise. Excerpt “[58] In relation to the adjustment of the profit level indicator for manufacturing activities, the expert found that comparable companies do not charge taxes such as the local business tax and the innovation levy as an expense to operating profit, the amount of which distorts comparability, this is a clearly identifiable difference in the cost structure of the company under investigation and the comparable companies, so an adjustment should be made in accordance with the OECD guidelines and the Transfer Pricing Regulation, because the statistical application of the interquartile range restriction cannot be used to increase comparability. However, the Court of First Instance held that it was not disputed that, even if the interquartile range as a statistical method was used, it might be necessary to apply individual adjustments, but that the applicant had not provided the audit with a detailed analysis of the justification for the adjustment and had not provided any documentary evidence in the course of the two administrative proceedings to show how the adjustment applied served to increase comparability. However, the application for review relied on the contradictory nature of the reasoning in this respect, since, while the Court of First Instance criticised the lack of documentation to support the adjustment {Ist judgment, paragraph 34}, it shared the expert’s view that this would indeed require an investment of time and energy which taxpayers could not reasonably be expected to make {Ist judgment, paragraph 35}. [59] On the other hand, the judgment at first instance explained that the applicant had only carried out research in the course of the administrative proceedings into whether the countries of the undertakings used as comparators had a similar type of tax burden to the Hungarian local business tax, and the expert had referred in his expert opinion to the fact that the applicant had only identified this one difference when carrying out the comparative analysis, but, if a detailed analysis is carried out, each difference can be individually identified and quantified and it is for this reason that the OECD guidelines also allow a range of results to be taken into account, because it reduces the differences between the business characteristics of the associated enterprises and the independent companies involved in comparable transactions and also takes account of differences which occur in different commercial and financial circumstances. Thus, the expert did not share the expert’s view that, while the narrowing to the interquartile range includes differences that are not quantifiable or clearly identifiable, individual adjustments should always be applied in the case of clearly identifiable and quantifiable significant differences. Thus, the trial court took a contrary view to the expert on this issue. [60] Nor did the Court of First Instance share the expert’s view in relation to the interest rate on the intercompany loan granted to the applicant by its affiliate and did not accept the expert’s finding that the MNB’s interest rate statistics were an averaging of the credit spreads of the debtor parties involved in the financing transactions, on an aggregated basis and, consequently, the use of the MNB interest rate statistics is not in itself capable of supporting or refuting the arm’s length principle of the interest rate applied in intra-group lending transactions, whether long or short-term. Nor did it accept the method used and described by the applicant in the comparability field, since it did not consider that the applicant should have used an international database to look for comparative data, since comparability was questionable. Furthermore, it considered irrelevant the expert’s reference to the fact that the average loan interest rates in Hungary in 2016 were strongly influenced by the low interest rates on subsidised loans to businesses and criticised the fact that the expert did not consider it necessary to examine the applicant’s current account loans under the cash-pool scheme. [61] It can thus be concluded that the Court of First Instance, in its judgment, did not accept the reasoning of the private expert’s opinion and made professionally different findings from those of the expert on both substantive points. [62] The opinion of the appointed expert is questionable if a) it is incomplete or does not contain the mandatory elements of the opinion required by law, b) it is vague, c) it contradicts itself or the data in the case, or d) there is otherwise a strong doubt as to its correctness [Art. 316 (1) of the Civil Code]. The private expert’s opinion is questionable if a) the case specified in paragraph (1) is present [Art. 316 (2) a) of the Civil Code]. Section 316 of the Private Expert Act specifies and indicates precisely in which cases the expert’s opinion is to be considered as a matter of concern. Thus, the expert’s opinion is of concern if it is incomplete, vague, contradictory or otherwise doubtful. The latter case ...

“Construction Service S.A.” is active in Design, Repair and Construction of buildings. During the FY 2011-2013 it paid for services – management services and construction services – rendered from related parties. Following an audit the tax authorities issued an assessment where payments for these services had been adjusted by reference to the arm’s length principle. According to the authorities the benchmark studies in the company’s transfer pricing documentation suffered from comparability defects and moreover it had not been sufficiently demonstrated that the services had been effectively provided. The tax authorities pointed out that since the company is not considered comparable to the taxpayer, the interquartile range would be from 5.15% to 8.30% with a median of 5.70%; therefore, the taxpayer’s operating margin of 4.07% is outside the interquartile range. Not satisfied with the adjustment “Construction Service S.A.” filed an appeal with the Tax Court Judgement of the Tax Court The court ruled in favour of “construction S.A” and revoked the decision of the tax authorities. Excerpts “Without prejudice to the foregoing, we must clarify that the adjustments to the financial information must use, precisely, the financial information, which leads us to disagree with the decision of the taxpayer’s expert to use the information from the income tax return for the calculation of the operating margin, knowing that there are quantitative and qualitative differences with respect to the financial information (page 565 of the Court’s file), and even with the information contained in the transfer pricing studies, which makes his answers to questions 1 and 2 less reliable, since the information used to determine the interquartile range is based on financial information (not tax information) of the comparables.” “In this regard, this Court considers that although the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines indicate in the section entitled “Multi-year data” of the Comparability Analysis Section, in paragraphs 3.75 to 3. 79, the possibility of using data relating to several years for the profitability analysis or multi-year data, the Tax Administration, used information from 2010 to 2012 of comparable companies since the appellant itself indicated in the 2012 Transfer Pricing Study, the total transactions carried out with its related parties abroad, taking into account that it was in this period, in which the transactions were carried out, according to the global financial information of the audited Financial Statements as of 31 December 2012 by , therefore the operating margin that should be adjusted to the median of free competition, the costs of the operations with related parties of ———— to the year 2012, but we agree with the Tax Administration that the additional liquidation for the Income Tax is the one declared for the fiscal period 2013, since it was in that period due to the opted method where the total gross income, costs and expenses were allocated, which includes as already mentioned the adjustment of the operating margin (See fs. 221 to 244 of Volume 1 of the DGI’s file). Therefore, it is not possible for the taxpayer, at this stage, to point out that the Tax Administration should have used the information from the periods of the companies selected as comparable, in accordance with the Transfer Pricing guidelines, taking into consideration the income tax return for the 2013 tax period, which includes the 3 years of operations of the work, i.e. from 2011 to 2013 (instead of 2010-2012), and which yields a profitability indicator or operating margin according to ————, (even though the company ——————– has been rejected, and maintaining those that the DGI did accept), of 4. 58%, a median of 4.67% and 7.85%, which, in its opinion, would place it within the range of compliance with the arm’s length principle. Similarly, we consider it important to point out that in the same way that the taxpayer cannot claim to use its aggregated financial information, ignoring the analysis made in its transfer pricing report submitted in the 2012 period, neither is it correct for the tax authorities to make an adjustment to the taxpayer’s segmented financial information (2012), and use, for the purposes of the additional assessment, the taxpayer’s accumulated income tax return, corresponding to the entire project. It is essential that any adjustment to the taxpayer’s financial/tax information is made in a congruent manner, i.e. taking into account the accumulated activity and not in a partial manner.” “preceding paragraphs and on the OECD’s guidelines in points 1.42, 1.52, 1.53, 1.55, 1.57 and 1.59 of Chapter I, which deals with the Arm’s Length Principle of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines.” “In this sense, this Court has stated in Resolution n.° TAT-RF-002 of 10 January 2020, regarding the possible manipulation of comparables known by the Anglo-Saxon expression “cherry picking”, in the following terms: “just as the criteria for discarding must be applied uniformly by the taxpayer, they must also be applied uniformly by the Tax Administration, regardless of whether the results of the analysis are in favour of or against the Treasury (The three companies challenged by the Tax Administration were those that presented the lowest operating margins: 1. 00%; -0.03% and -23.64% respectively), concluding that “it is incongruous to object to comparables that are in similar circumstances with others that have been accepted, i.e. that have a reasonable level of comparability with the examined party”.” “By virtue of the allegations made by both parties, we consider from the procedural evidence in the file that the process followed to identify potential comparables by both parties has been systematic and verifiable; however, we agree with the taxpayer that the companies selected by them are comparable with ————, and comply with the Principle of Full Competition, therefore, they should be taken into account within the interquartile range, since we consider that the elements of the comparability analysis, indicated by the DGI, are not compromised. In view of the above, as we do not agree with the objection made to this comparable company by the Tax Administration, and as the taxpayer is within the range of full competence, this Court must revoke Resolution no. 201-3306 of ...

In 2001, Singtel, through its wholly owned Australian subsidiary, Singapore Telecom Australia Investments Pty Limited (Singtel Au), acquired the majority of the shares in Cable & Wireless Optus for $17.2 billion. The tax consequences of this acqusition was decided by the Federal Court in Cable & Wireless Australia & Pacific Holding BV (in liquiatie) v Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCAFC 71. Cable & Wireless argued that part of the price paid under a share buy-back was not dividends and that withholding tax should therefor be refunded. The ATO and the Court disagreed. ATO and Singtel is now in a new dispute  – this time over tax consequences associated with the intra-group financing of the takeover. This case was heard in the Federal Court in August 2021. At issue is a tax assessments for FY 2011, 2012 and 2013 resulting in additional taxes in an amount $268 million. In the assessment interest deductions claimed in Australia on notes issued under a Loan Note Issuance Agreement (LNIA) has been disallowed by the ATO ...

In 2008 Lender Kft. entered into a loan agreement with its foreign domiciled affiliated company Kft. 1. According to the terms of the contract, the loan amounted to 53,174,516, the maturity date of the loan was 31 January 2013 and the interest was paid semi-annually at the semi-annual CDI rate fixed in the contract plus 200 basis points per annum. In the years 2009-2011, Kft. 1 paid 15 % of the interest as withholding tax, and Lender Kft. received 85 % of the interest. In its books, Lender Kft. entered 100 % of the interest as income, while the 15 % withholding tax was recorded as other expenses. According to Lender Kft’s transfer pricing records, the normal market interest rate range was 8,703 % to 10,821 % in FY 2009, 10,704 % to 12,598 % in the FY 2010 and 10,704 % to 12,598 % in FY 2001, and the interest rates applied in the loan transaction were 10,701 % to 12,529 %, 12,517 % to 14,600 % and 12,517 % to 14,600 % in the same years. In other words, according to the records, the interest rates applied to the transaction were partly within and partly above the market price range. Lender Kft. used the CUP method to determine the transfer price, taking into account external and internal comparables. As an external comparison, it used a so-called risk premium model based on the rating of the debtor party and the terms and conditions of the loan, taking into account publicly available data. For the credit rating of the related company, it used the risk model of the name, on the basis of which it classified the company between A1 and A3. It defined the range of interest rates to be applied in the loan terms and conditions, then the default rate and the rate of return, and finally, by substituting these data into the risk premium model formula, it defined the risk premium rates for each risk rating. In doing so, it used subordinated bonds. The benchmark interest rate range was defined as the sum of the risk-free rate and the risk premium. As an internal comparison, the applicant requested quotations from various commercial banks, as independent parties, before granting the loan, as to the amount of profit it could expect to obtain if it deposited its money with them (Bank1, Bank2) The Tax tax authorities carried out an audit of Lender Kft for FY 2009, 2010 and 2011. In the view of the tax authority at first instance, the CUP method, although appropriate for determining the arm’s length price, was not the method used by the applicant. According to the tax authorities the rating of a debtor using public rating models may differ greatly from the rating carried out by the rating agency which created the model, which results in a high degree of uncertainty as to the method used by the applicant. A further problem was that Lender Kft had based its pricing on a rate for subordinated bonds, whereas a bank loan and a bond are two different financial instruments and cannot be compared. In this context, it was stated that the transaction under examination was a loan contract and not a bond issue. The tax authorities explained that the unit operating costs are the lowest in the banking market and that it had not been demonstrated that the cost of the applicant’s lending was lower than that of a bank loan. It also stated that the mere existence of information through a relationship does not imply a lower risk exposure. In relation to the internal comparables, it stressed that the loan granted by Lender Kft could not be classified as a deposit transaction and that the comparison with the deposit rate was therefore incorrect. According to the tax authority, for the purposes of determining the normal market price, the … banking market best reflects the conditions under which the related undertaking would obtain a loan under market conditions, and therefore the so-called “prime rate” interest rate statistics calculated by the Central Bank of the country in question are the most appropriate for its calculation. This statistic shows the average interest rate at which commercial banks lend to their best customers. Accordingly, the tax authority at first instance took this rate as the basis for determining the difference between the interest rate applied to the transaction at issue and the normal market rate. As a result, the applicant’s corporate tax base was increased by HUF 233,135,000.00 in the financial year 2009, HUF 198,638,000.00 in the financial year 2010 and HUF 208,017,000.00 in the financial year 2011, pursuant to Article 18(1) of Act LXXXI of 1996 on Corporate Tax and Dividend Tax (‘Tao Law’). Lender Kft. filed a complaint against the decision and requested that the decision be altered or annulled and that the defendant be ordered to commence new proceedings. In the complaint it stated that the method used by the tax authorities did not comply with points 1.33, 1.35 and 2.14 of the OECD TPG, nor with Article 7(d) of the PM Regulation. By judgment of 20 April 2018, the Court of First Instance annulled the tax authorities first assessment and ordered the authority to initiate new proceedings in that regard. The court stated that the tax authority must determine whether the pricing of the loan at issue in the case was in line with the arm’s length price, taking into account the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and the expert’s opinion in this context. Under the revised audit process the tax authorities found other issued which were added to the new assessment. Lender Kft. then filed an appeal with the Administrative Court. Judgement of the Administrative Court The Administrative court found the appeal well founded. Excerpts “The tax authority was only legally able to implement the judgment of the court in the retrial ordered by the court. The subject-matter of the action was the finding of the tax authority as a result of the audit ...

In the course of an ongoing Canadian triel concerning transfer pricing adjustments in the amounts of $3,000,000,000, the Canadian Imperical Bank of Commerce had brought a motion for leave to call in seven expert witnesses – included four transfer pricing experts. The motion was dismissed by the Court. The Federal Court Rules impose a high threshold on parties seeking to call additional expert witnesses. The fact that the appeals involved lots of money did not make them “significant to public”. Issues surrounding application of transfer pricing rules to settlement payments and relevance of accounting treatment to deductibility of expenditures within corporate group were not of broad application and need to resolve them was not particularly pressing. Expert evidence would be important in complex and technical areas of accounting and transfer pricing issues, but that alone could not support presumption that more than five transfer pricing expert witnesses would be needed. Taxpayer did not establish that experts’ evidence would not be duplicative. While more experts might be needed because traditional transaction-based transfer pricing methods could not be applied given unusual subject of transfer pricing inquiry, disparity with Minister’s one transfer pricing expert suggested that taxpayer was attempting to win through numbers. Taxpayer’s delay in bringing motion would not be considered due to Minister’s failure to argue for such consideration, but it would otherwise have been given very significant weight. Only factor that supported taxpayer’s motion was that additional costs associated with extra witnesses paled in relation to amount in dispute, and mere fact that there was lot of money at stake was insufficient to allow motion. In summary, the only factor supporting the motion was that the additional costs associated with calling two additional expert witnesses were small compared to the amount in dispute. The mere fact that there is a lot of money at stake is an insufficient reason to allow the motion ...

JFC Ecuador is active in coordination and logistic operations for the transfer of Ecuadorian fruit to related parties in the Russian JFC Group. Following an audit the tax authorities issued an assessment where the prices of these transactions had been determined based on quoted prices issued by the authorities in the SOPISCO NEWS database. However, according to JFC Ecuador, SOPISCO NEWS does not correspond to a publicly available international trade exchange or price database. On the contrary, it is a bulletin that lists quotations that involve price estimates, established through unidentified sources. The price quotations listed by SOPISCO NEWS correspond to prices that the bulletin presumes were agreed upon by companies that have carried out the management and marketing and sales for the placement of the product, while JFC Ecuador did not carry out such activities. Judgment of the Court The Court concludes that the use of the SOPISCO NEWS database by the Tax Administration, as it is an internationally recognized source of price information used by international organizations as a source of information, is appropriate depending on the method applied. In conclusion, this Chamber considers that the Tax Administration acted in accordance with its determining power as set forth in Article 68 of the Tax Code and Article 23 of the Internal Tax Regime Law, and that its acts are subject to the presumption of legitimacy and enforceability as set forth in Article 82 of the same law…”. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

Nestlé de Costa Rica S.A. had been issued a tax assessment in which the taxable income for FY 2005 and 2006 was adjusted with an additional amount of ¢60,609,096.00 and ¢75,663,084.00. According to the tax authorities, the sales made by Nestlé to its related companies located in Chile, Switzerland and Puerto Rico had a profit margin different from those made to third parties. The margin on the unrelated transactions was 88% whereas the margins on comparable related party transactions was only 7%. The adjustments was determined based on internal CUPs. Judgement of the Court The Court dismissed the appeal of Nestlé. Excerpts “This Chamber agrees with the Tribunal, in the sense that the expert witness Luna Ramírez, during her testimony, does not manage to disprove the system applied by the Tax Administration, since she rejects the method used, however, she also states that it is difficult to resort to any other method. What is clear from this testimony is that in this process the plaintiff could not substantiate or justify the reason why it sold the same product at a lower price to its related companies.” “According to the study made by the Tax Administration, which again was not contested by the plaintiff, the average profit on the standard cost of the products sold to independent companies was 87.87%, while with the related companies it was 7.17% for the tax periods at issue here. The difference is so large that it is not possible to explain reliably the reason for this disparity.” “Therefore, this Chamber endorses the Court’s position of upholding the criterion issued by the Tax Administration and collecting the differences due to the total non-payment of the tax.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...