Ikea France (SNC MIF) had concluded a franchise agreement with Inter Ikea Systems BV (IIS BV) in the Netherlands by virtue of which it benefited, in particular, as a franchisee, from the right to operate the ‘Ikea Retail System’ (the Ikea concept), the ‘Ikea Food System’ (food sales) and the ‘Ikea Proprietary Rights’ (the Ikea trade mark) in its shops. In return, Ikea France paid Inter Ikea Systems BV a franchise fee equal to 3% of the amount of net sales made in France, which amounted to EUR 68,276,633 and EUR 72,415,329 for FY 2010 and 2011. These royalties were subject to the withholding tax provided for in the provisions of Article 182 B of the French General Tax Code, but under the terms of Article 12 of the Convention between France and the Netherlands: “1. Royalties arising in one of the States and paid to a resident of the other State shall be taxable only in that other State”, the term “royalties” meaning, according to point 2. of this Article 12, “remuneration of any kind paid for the use of, or the right to use, (…) a trade mark (…)”. As the franchise fees paid by Ikea France to Inter Ikea Systems BV were taxable in the Netherlands, Ikea France was not obligated to pay withholding taxes provided for by the provisions of Article 182 B of the General Tax Code. However, the tax authorities held that the arrangement set up by the IKEA group constituted abuse of law and furthermore that Inter Ikea Systems BV was not the actual beneficiary of the franchise fees paid by Ikea France. On that basis, an assessment for the fiscal years 2010 and 2011 was issued according to which Ikea France was to pay additional withholding taxes and late payment interest in an amount of EUR 95 mill. The court of first instance decided in favor of Ikea and the tax authorities then filed an appeal with the CAA of Versailles. Judgement of the CAA of Versailles The Court of appeal upheld the decision of the court of first instance and decided in favor of IKEA. Excerpt “It follows from the foregoing that the Minister, who does not establish that the franchise agreement concluded between SNC MIF and the company IIS BV corresponds to an artificial arrangement with the sole aim of evading the withholding tax, by seeking the benefit of the literal application of the provisions of the Franco-Dutch tax convention, is not entitled to maintain that the administration could implement the procedure for abuse of tax law provided for in Article L. 64 of the tax procedure book and subject to the withholding tax provided for in Article 182 B of the general tax code the royalties paid by SNC MIF by considering them as having directly benefited the Interogo foundation. On the inapplicability alleged by the Minister of the stipulations of Article 12 of the tax convention without any reference to an abusive arrangement: If the Minister maintains that, independently of the abuse of rights procedure, the provisions of Article 12 of the tax treaty are not applicable, it does not follow from the investigation, for the reasons set out above, that IIS BV is not the actual beneficiary of the 70% franchise fees paid by SAS MIF. It follows from all of the above that the Minister is not entitled to argue that it was wrongly that, by the contested judgment, the Versailles Administrative Court granted SAS MIF the restitution of an amount of EUR 95,912,185 corresponding to the withholding taxes payable by it, in duties, increases and late payment interest, in respect of the financial years ended in 2010 and 2011. Consequently, without there being any need to examine its subsidiary conclusions regarding increases, its request must be rejected.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

67. Company P, a resident of country A conducts a retailing business, operating several department stores in country A. Over the years, Company P has developed special know-how and a unique marketing concept for the operation of its department stores. It is assumed that the know-how and unique marketing concept constitute intangibles within the meaning of Section A of Chapter VI. After years of successfully conducting business in country A, Company P establishes a new subsidiary, Company S, in country B. Company S opens and operates new department stores in country B, obtaining profit margins substantially higher than those of otherwise comparable retailers in country B. 68. A detailed functional analysis reveals that Company S uses in its operations in country B, the same know-how and unique marketing concept as the ones used by Company P in its operations in country A. Under these circumstances, the conduct of the parties reveals that a transaction has taken place consisting in the transfer from Company P to Company S of the right to use the know-how and unique marketing concept. Under comparable circumstances, independent parties would have concluded a license agreement granting Company S the right to use in country B, the know-how and unique marketing concept developed by Company P. Accordingly, one possible remedy available to the tax administration is a transfer pricing adjustment imputing a royalty payment from Company S to Company P for the use of these intangibles ...

LCF Zimbabwe LTD manufactures cement and similar products from limestone extracted at a mine in Zimbabwe. It also manufactures adhesives and adhesive paints and decorative paints, construction chemicals and agricultural lime. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of a large European group, which manufactures and sells building and construction materials. The issues in this case concerned tax deductibility of “master branding fees”, consumable spare parts not utilised at the tax year end, quarry overburden expenses and computer software. Furthermore there were also the question of levying penalties. Judgement of the Tax Court The Court decided in favour of the tax authorities. Excerpts: “The corollary to the finding of indivisibility is that the disallowance by the Commissioner of the 1.5% master branding fees of US$ 863 252.70 in the 2012 tax year and US$ 1 140 000 in the 2013 tax year was correct while the split of the 2% rate in respect of the first franchise agreement was wrong. I will direct the Commissioner to deduct the amounts he added back to income on the basis that they constituted non-deductible master branding fees, the sum of US$ 212 356.13 from the 2009 tax year, US$ 312 636 from the 2010 tax year and US$370 913.85 from the 2011 tax year.” “Accordingly, the Commissioner correctly disallowed the deduction of the amortised quarry development costs of US$ 3 782 791 claimed by the appellant in the 2013 tax year.” “I, therefore, hold that the appellant improperly claimed for the deductions of the special initial allowances in each of the 3 years in question.” “In the exercise of my own discretion I would impose the same penalty as the Commissioner in the present matter. Accordingly, the 60% penalty imposed by the Commissioner stands.” Click here for translation ...

67. Company P, a resident of country A conducts a retailing business, operating several department stores in country A. Over the years, Company P has developed special know-how and a unique marketing concept for the operation of its department stores. It is assumed that the know-how and unique marketing concept constitute intangibles within the meaning of Section A of Chapter VI. After years of successfully conducting business in country A, Company P establishes a new subsidiary, Company S, in country B. Company S opens and operates new department stores in country B, obtaining profit margins substantially higher than those of otherwise comparable retailers in country B. 68. A detailed functional analysis reveals that Company S uses in its operations in country B, the same know-how and unique marketing concept as the ones used by Company P in its operations in country A. Under these circumstances, the conduct of the parties reveals that a transaction has taken place consisting in the transfer from Company P to Company S of the right to use the know-how and unique marketing concept. Under comparable circumstances, independent parties would have concluded a license agreement granting Company S the right to use in country B, the know-how and unique marketing concept developed by Company P. Accordingly, one possible remedy available to the tax administration is a transfer pricing adjustment imputing a royalty payment from Company S to Company P for the use of these intangibles ...

In 1996, X BV acquired the right to commercially exploit an intangible asset (Z) for a period of 15 years for $ 63.5 million. X BV then entered a franchise agreements with group companies for the use of Z, including a Spanish PE of Y BV. According to the franchise agreement Y BV paid X BV a fee. According to X, in the calculation of the loss carry forward in Spain the franchise fee should not be fully attributed to the PE in Spain due to existing rules on internal roaylties. X states that the loss carry forward amounts to € 13.1 million. The tax authorities increases the loss carry forward with the fee paid to X, for the use of Z by the Spanish PE. According to the tax authorities, the loss carry forward is € 16.1 million. The District Court finds that no amount needs to be taken of the fees that Y BV paid to X BV for the use of Z by the Spannish PE. However, the court finds that financing costs have to be taken into account. The District Court sets the total loss carry forward from Spanish PE to € 14 million. The Supreme Court ruled that the calculation of the District court was not correct. According to the Supreme Court the starting point must be the actual amount paid for the use of Z in Spanish market at the time. It must then be determined which part of the purchase price can be attributed to the use of Z on the Spanish market. Furthermore, the Supreme Court finds that the District Court was right not to take into the fees owed by the Spanish PE to X. The Supreme Court refered the case back to the District Court. Case No 2016:1031 Click here for translation Click here for translation ...