Maersk Oil and Gas A/S (later TotalEnergies EP Danmark A/S) continued to make operating losses, although the group’s combined oil and gas operations were highly profitable. Following an audit of Maersk Oil, the tax authorities considered that three items did not comply with the arm’s length principle. Maersk Oil incurred all the expenses for preliminary studies of where oil and gas could be found, but the results of these investigations and discoveries were handed over to the newly established subsidiaries free of charge. Licence agreements were signed with Qatar and Algeria for oil extraction. These agreements were entered into with the subsidiaries as contracting parties, but it was Maersk Oil that guaranteed that the subsidiaries could fulfil their obligations and committed to make the required technology and know-how available. Expert assistance (time writing) was provided to the subsidiaries, but these services were remunerated at cost with no profit to Maersk Oil. An assessment was issued where additional taxable income was determined on an aggregated basis as a share of profits from the activities – corresponding to a royalty of approximately 1,7 % of the turnover in the two subsidiaries. In 2018, the Tax Court upheld the decision and Maersk Oil and Gas A/S subsequently appealed to the High Court. In 2022, the High Court held that the subsidiaries in Algeria and Qatar owned the licences for oil extraction, both formally and in fact. In this regard, there was therefore no transaction. Furthermore the explorations studies in question were not completed until the 1990s and Maersk Oil and Gas A/S had not incurred any costs for the subsequent phases of the oil extraction. These studies therefore did not constitute controlled transactions. The Court therefore found no basis for an annual remuneration in the form of royalties or profit shares from the subsidiaries in Algeria and Qatar. On the other hand, the Regional Court found that Maersk Oil and Gas A/S’ so-called performance guarantees for the subsidiaries in Algeria and Qatar were controlled transactions and should therefore be priced at arm’s length. In addition, the Court found that technical and administrative assistance (so-called time writing) to the subsidiaries in Algeria and Qatar at cost was not in line with what could have been obtained if the transactions had been concluded between independent parties. These transactions should therefore also be priced at arm’s length. The High Court referred the cases back to the tax authorities for reconsideration. An appeal was then filed by the tax authorities with the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court decided in favour of the tax authorities and upheld the original assessment. The court stated that the preliminary exploration phases in connection with oil exploration and performance guarantees and the related know-how had an economic value for the subsidiaries, for which an independent party would require ongoing payment in the form of profit share, royalty or the like. They therefore constituted controlled transactions. Furthermore, the court stated that Maersk Oil and Gas A/S’ delivery of timewriting at cost price was outside the scope of what could have been achieved if the agreement had been entered into at arm’s length. Finally, the transactions were considered to be so closely related that they had to be assessed and priced on an aggregated basis and Maersk Oil and Gas A/S had not provided any basis for overturning the tax authorities’ assessment. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

In 2009-2011 Fortis Petroleum Norway AS (FPN) bought seismic data related to oil exploration in the North Sea from a related party, Petroleum GeoServices AS (PGS), for NKR 95.000.000. FBN paid the amount by way of a convertible intra-group loan from PGS in the same amount. FPN also purchased administrative services from another related party, Consema, and later paid a substantial termination fee when the service contract was terminated. The acquisition costs, interest on the loan, costs for services and termination fees had all been deducted in the taxable income of the company for the years in question. Central to this case is the exploration refund scheme on the Norwegian shelf. This essentially means that exploration companies can demand cash payment of the tax value of exploration costs, cf. the Petroleum Tax Act § 3 letter c) fifth paragraph. If the taxpayer does not have income to cover an exploration cost, the company receives payment / refund of the tax value from the state. On 21 November 2018, the Petroleum Tax Office issued two decisions against FPN. One decision (the “Seismic decision”) which applied to the income years 2010 to 2011, where FPN was denied a deduction for the purchase of seismic services from PGS and interest on the associated seller credit, as well as ordinary and increased additional tax (hereinafter the «seismic decision»), and another decision (the “Consema decision”) which applied to the income years 2011 and 2012 where, FPN’s claim for deduction for the purchase of administrative services from Consema for the income years 2011 and 2012 was reduced at its discretion, and where FPN was also denied a deduction for the costs of the services and a deduction for termination fees. Finally in regards of the “Seismic decision” an increased additional tax of a total of 60 per cent, was added to the additional taxation on the basis of the incorrectly deducted seismic purchases as FPN had provided incorrect and incomplete information to the Oil Tax Office. In the “Seismic decision” the tax office argued that FPN used a exploration reimbursement scheme to run a “tax carousel” In the “Consema decision” the tax office found that the price paid for the intra-group services and the termination fee had not been determined at arm’s length. An appeal was filed by Fortis Petroleum Norway AS with the district court where, in December 2020, the case was decided in favour of the tax authorities. An appeal was then filed with the Court of Appel Judgement of the Court of Appeal The court upheld the decisions of the district court and decided in favour of the tax authorities. The Court concluded that the condition for deduction in the Tax Act § 6-1 on incurred costs on the part of Fortis Petroleum Norway AS was not met, and that there was a basis for imposing ordinary and increased additional tax. The Court of Appeal further found that the administrative services and the termination fee were controlled transactions and had not been priced at arm’s length. Excerpts – Regarding the acquisition of seismic exploration Based on the case’s extensive evidence, and especially the contemporary evidence, the Court of Appeal has found that there was a common subjective understanding between FPN and PGS, both at the planning stage, during the conclusion of the agreement, in carrying out the seismic purchases and in the subsequent process. should take place by conversion to a subscription price that was not market-based. Consequently, seismic would not be settled with real values. This was made possible through the common interest of the parties. The parties also never significantly distanced themselves from this agreement. The Court of Appeal has heard testimonies from the management of PGS and FPN, but can not see that these entail any other view on the question of what was agreed. The loan was never repaid, and in the end it was converted to the pre-agreed exchange rate of NOK 167. In the Court of Appeal’s view, there is no other rational explanation for this course than that it was carefully adapted to the financing through 78 per cent of the exploration refund. The share value at the time of conversion was down to zero. The Court of Appeal agrees with the state that all conversion prices between 167 and 0 kroner would have given a share price that reflected the value in FPN better and which consequently had given PGS a better settlement. On this basis, the Court of Appeal believes that the conversion rate did not cover the 22 percent, and that there was a common perception that this was in line with the purpose of the establishment of FPN, namely not to pay “a penny” of fresh capital. The Court of Appeal has also emphasized that the same thing that happened in 2009 was repeated in 2010 and 2011. For 2009, the Oil Tax Office came to the conclusion that it was a pro forma event and a shift in financial risk. In 2010 and 2011, the same actors used the same structure and procedure to finance all costs from the state. It is thus the Court of Appeal’s view that there was a common understanding between the parties to the agreement that the real relationship within was different from that which was signaled to the tax authorities regarding sacrifice and which provided the basis for the deduction. Furthermore, in the Court of Appeal’s view, the loan transactions were not fiscally neutral. The seismic purchases constituted the only source of liquidity and were covered in their entirety by the state. In light of ESA’s decision from 2018 as an element of interpretation, such a loss of fiscal neutrality would indicate that when the company has thus not borne any risk itself, sacrifice has not taken place either. Even if the debt had been real, assuming a sale without a common interest of the parties, in the Court of Appeal’s view in a tax context it could not be decisive, as long as 22 ...

Interoil Colombia Exploration and Production S.A. paid it foreign parent for cost related to exploration and administrative services, and for tax purposes these costs had been deducted in the taxable income. In total $3,571,353,600 had been declared as operating expenses for geological and geophysical studies carried out in the exploratory phase of an oil project and $5.548.680.347 had been declared for administrative services rendered from its parent company abroad Following an audit the tax authorities issued an assessment where these deductions was denied. In regards of cost related to exploration, these should have been recorded as a deferred charge amortisable over up to five years, according to articles 142 and 143 of the Tax Statute. In accordance with Article 142, these investments are recorded as deferred assets and are also declared for tax purposes. (…) According to the general accounting regulations – Decree 2649 of 1993 – deferred assets are part of the company’s assets, and correspond to anticipated expenses or goods and services from which benefits are expected to be obtained in other periods. These items are recorded as assets until the corresponding economic benefit is fully or partially consumed or lost. In other words, as deferred assets are utilised, they are transferred to amortised expense. Expenses that have not been used by the company must be kept in the assets. But once the deferred asset starts to help generate income, it can be incorporated as an expense. In regards of deductions of $5.548.680.347 for payments made by Interoil Colombia to its parent company abroad for administration services, these were denied because Interoil Colombia did not, as required by law, withhold tax at source. Decision of the Administrative Court In a split decision the appeal of Interoil Colombia was dismissed and the assessment upheld. Excerpts Disallowed deductions for payments related to exploration “… as there is a precise regulation within the tax regulations on the form and requirements needed to make the amortisation of investments deductible, the application of accounting rules is not appropriate, in accordance with the provisions of article 136 of Decree 2649 of 1993 and in application of the special rules that are applied in preference to the general rules. Likewise, with regard to the method for the amortisation of investments, the Section pointed out that : “Article 143 E.T. contains, in a perfectly independent and separate manner, the requirements for the amortisation of each of the situations set out therein. Thus, in subsection 1° it refers to the investments described in article 142 and, with respect to these, it orders that ‘they may be amortised in a term of no less than five (5) years, unless it is demonstrated that, due to the nature or duration of the business, the amortisation must be made in a shorter term’. “It then sets out, in paragraphs 2 and 3, special cases of amortisation different from the general one, for which it determines particular requirements. Subsection 2 refers to when it is intended to amortise ‘Costs of acquisition or exploration and exploitation of non-renewable natural resources’, in which case, amortisation may be made ‘based on the system of technical estimation of the cost of operating units or by straight-line amortisation, over a period of not less than five (5) years’; and paragraph 3 refers specifically to ‘contracts where the taxpayer contributes goods, works, installations or other assets such as concession, shared risk or joint venture contracts’, in which case, the term for amortisation is limited to the duration of the contract until the moment of transfer, and, for the latter, it orders that the amortisation be carried out ‘by the straight line or balance reduction methods, or by another method of recognised technical value authorised by the National Tax and Customs Directorate’. The application of the successful efforts method is therefore rejected, taking into account that, as stated above, articles 142 and 143 of the E.T. are applicable, which indicate how the expenses incurred by the plaintiff in the exploratory stage should be treated. It is reiterated that the cited rules mention the accounting technique regarding the registration of the investment, either as a deferred asset or cost, and do not refer to the accounting to determine the conditions of amortisation, which are clearly described in Article 143 of the E.T. In this way, the Court finds that the accused acts are in accordance with the law in that they rejected the deduction for operating expenses for $3,571,353,600 and took this value as a deferred asset that can be amortised so that once the expected income is generated, it is incorporated as an expense and recognised as such. In this sense, article 69 of Decree 187 of 1975, which refers to the amortisation of investments or losses, foresees that in cases in which the explorations are unsuccessful or non-productive, the expenses in exploration, prospecting or installation of wells or mines can be amortised with income from other productive exploitations of the same nature. In other words, in the event that the project associated with the expenditure for geological and geophysical studies proves to be unsuccessful, the claimant can amortise these values with the income from other productive exploitations of the same nature.” Disallowed deductions for payments related to administrative services “Payments made to parent companies or offices abroad for administration or management expenses, as well as those recognised for royalties and exploitation or acquisition of intangibles, are deductible from their income as a cost or deduction, provided that the respective withholding at source of income tax and remittances has been made on such payments, and furthermore, that the same constitutes national source income for the person who receives it. Therefore, if the payments to the parent companies are taxable in Colombia and, therefore, are subject to withholding tax, they will be deductible for whoever pays them, obviously in the case of income considered to be of national source; on the contrary, if the payments referred to are of foreign source and, therefore, are not taxable through the withholding ...