A Dutch company “Tobacco B.V.” belonging to an internationally operating tobacco group was subjected to (additional assessment) corporate income tax assessments according to taxable amounts of €2,850,670,712 (2013), €2,849,204,122 (2014), €2,933,077,258 (2015) and €3,067,630,743 (2016), and to penalty fines for the year 2014 of €1,614,709, for the year 2015 of €363,205 and for the year 2016 of €125,175,082. In each case, the dispute focuses on whether the fees charged by various group companies for supplies and services can be regarded as business-related. Also in dispute is whether transfer profit should have been recognised in connection with a cessation of business activities. One of the group companies provided factoring services to “Tobacco B.V.”. The factoring fee charged annually for this includes a risk fee to cover the default risk and an annual fee for other services. The court concluded that the risk was actually significantly lower than the risk assumed in determining the risk fee, that the other services were routine in nature and that the factoring fee as a whole should be qualified as impractical. “Tobacco B.V.” has not rebutted the presumption that the disadvantage caused to it by paying the factoring fees was due to the affiliation between it and the service provider. In 2016, a reorganisation took place within the tobacco group in which several agreements concluded between group companies were terminated. The court concluded that there had been a coherent set of legal acts, whereby a Dutch group company transferred its business activities in the field of exporting tobacco products, including the functions carried out therein, the risks assumed therein and the entire profit potential associated therewith, to a group company in the UK. For the adjustment related to the transfer profit, the court relies on the projected cash flows from the business and information known at the time the decision to transfer was taken. The conclusions regarding factoring and the termination of business activities in the Netherlands lead to a deficiency in the tax return for each of the years 2014 to 2016. For these years, “Tobacco B.V.” filed returns to negative taxable amounts. For the years 2014 and 2016, a substantial amount of tax due arises after correction, even if the corrections established by application of reversal and aggravation are disregarded. For the year 2015, the tax due remains zero even after correction. Had the return been followed, this would have resulted in “Tobacco B.V.” being able to achieve, through loss relief, that substantially less tax would be due than the actual tax due. At the time the returns were filed, “Tobacco B.V.” knew that this would result in a substantial amount of tax due not being levied in each of these years and the court did not find a pleading position in this regard. The burden of proof is therefore reversed and aggravated. For the year 2013, this follows from the court’s decision of 17 October 2022, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2022:8937. To finance their activities, the group companies issued listed bonds under the tobacco group’s so-called EMTN Programme, which were guaranteed by the UK parent company. A subsidiary of “Tobacco B.V.” joined in a tax group paid an annual guarantee fee to the UK parent company for this purpose. The court ruled that: – the guarantee fees are not expenses originating from the subsidiary’s acceptance of liability for debts of an affiliated company; – the EMTN Programme is not a credit arrangement within the meaning of the Umbrella Credit Judgment(ECLI:NL:HR:2013:BW6520); – “Tobacco B.V.” has made it clear that a not-for-profit fee can be determined at which an independent third party would have been willing to accept the same liability on otherwise the same terms and conditions; – “Tobacco B.V.” failed to show that in the years in which the guarantee fees were provided, credit assessments did not have to take implied guarantee into account; – “Tobacco B.V.” failed to show that its subsidiary was not of such strategic importance to the group that its derivative rating did not match the group rating, so that the guarantee fees paid are not at arm’s length due to the effect of implied guarantee in their entirety; – “Tobacco B.V.” did not put forward any contentions that could rebut the objectified presumption of awareness that follows from the size of the adjustments (the entire guarantee fee), that the disadvantage suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the payment of the guarantee fees is due to its affiliation with its parent company. A group company charges the claimant, inter alia, a fee corresponding to a percentage of “Tobacco B.V.”‘s profits (profit split) for activities on behalf of the tobacco group that result in cost savings for “Tobacco B.V.”. The court ruled that “Tobacco B.V.” failed to prove that the group company made a unique contribution to the tobacco group that could justify the agreed profit split. The group company also charges “Tobacco B.V.” a fee equivalent to a 12% mark-up on costs for services relating to the manufacture of cigarettes. The court ruled that, in the context of the reversal and aggravation of the burden of proof, it was not sufficient for “Tobacco B.V.” to refer to the functional analysis, as it was based on the incorrect premise that the group company could be compared to a manufacturer. Finally, since April 2012, “Tobacco B.V.” has been paying the group company a 10% fee on the costs excluding raw materials for the production of cigarettes as toll manufacturer, where previously the basis of this fee also included the costs of raw materials. The court noted that the flow of goods remained the same and that “Tobacco B.V.” remained operationally responsible for the production process. The court ruled that it was up to “Tobacco B.V.” to establish and prove facts from which it follows that it was businesslike to change the basis of remuneration, which it did not do sufficiently. Regarding an adjustment made by the tax authorities in relation to reorganisation costs, the court finds that the adjustment was made in error ...

“Tobacco B.V.” is a Dutch company belonging to an international tobacco group. Following an audit an assessment of additional taxable income of €196,001,385, €220,624,304 and €179,896,349 for FY 2008-2010 was issued to “Tobacco B.V.”, and a penalty for non-compliance for FY 2010 of €477,624 was imposed. The dispute focused on whether the fees charged by various group companies for supplies and services had been at arm’s length. To finance their activities, the group companies issued listed bonds under the tobacco group’s so-called EMTN Programme, guaranteed by the parent company in the UK. For this, the claimant paid an annual guarantee fee to the parent company of approximately €35,000,000. Judgement of the court – the guarantee fees are not expenses originating from the “Tobacco B.V.”‘s acceptance of liability for debts of an affiliated company; – the EMTN Programme is not a credit arrangement within the meaning of the Umbrella Credit Judgment (ECLI:NL:HR:2013:BW6520); – the tax authorities has not made it plausible that it is not possible to determine a non profit-related remuneration at which an independent third party would have been willing to accept the same liability under otherwise the same conditions and circumstances; – the tax authorities did make it plausible that “Tobacco B.V.”, as a ‘core company’ of the tobacco group, enjoys an implied guarantee from the parent company for which no remuneration should be paid because there is no group service; – “Tobacco B.V.” has not put forward any arguments capable of rebutting the objective presumption of awareness that follows from the size of the adjustments (the entire guarantee fee), that the disadvantage suffered by “Tobacco B.V.” as a result of the payment of the guarantee fees is due to its affiliation to its parent company, – the tax authorities did not reasonably have to doubt the accuracy of the information on the guarantee fees contained in the declarations, so that the authorities did not commit an official omission – the tax authorities did not provide information or create the justified impression of a deliberate determination of position as a result of which the authorities was entitled to rely on the principle of legitimate expectations. One of the group companies provided factoring services to the claimant. The factoring fee of €2,500,000 charged annually for this purpose includes a risk fee to cover the debtor risk – excluding a bad debtor – and an annual fee of €1,200,000 for other services. Noting that the debtor risk – including the bad debtor – can be insured on the market for €438,000, the court inferred that an independent third party would not be willing to pay the risk fee. Given the large share of the risk fee, the court qualifies the entire factoring fee as non-business. The court considers that the tax due according to the tax return in respect of the factoring fees, assessed independently, is not significantly lower than the actual tax due. The court further considers that the tax payable in respect of the factoring fees and guarantee fees taken together is indeed significantly lower than the actual tax payable, and the amounts are individually significant. However, reversal and aggravation of the burden of proof is not forthcoming because the subjective awareness required for this is lacking. The court ruled that the adjustment of transfer prices did not violate European law. It follows from the Hornbach judgment (ECLI:EU:C:2018:366) that the TFEU in principle does not preclude a regulation such as that contained in Section 8b of the Vpb Act. The claimant could have made it plausible without undue administrative effort that the transactions were agreed for commercial reasons arising from the shareholder link with the group companies involved, but it did not put forward such reasons. Finally, the court found that the “Tobacco B.V.” knew that the entire debtor portfolio was insurable on the market for €438,000, and by deducting the proportionally much higher factoring fees, knew that too little tax would be levied. The court ruled that there was no pleading and found that the fine was appropriate and necessary in principle, albeit reduced for exceeding the reasonable time limit. The court declares the appeals unfounded and reduces the fine decision. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...