At issue is the selection of the most appropriate transfer pricing method for sale of coal mined by Carbones El Tesoro S.A. in Colombia to its related party abroad, Glencore International AG. Carbones El Tesoro S.A. had determined the transfer price by application of the TNMM method. The tax authorities found that the most appropriate method for pricing the transactions was the CUP method. To that end, the tax authorities applied a database (McCloskey price list) in which the price, was determined by referring to a good similar to that traded (thermal coal) and to the Btus (British Thermal Unit) thereof. On 29 April 2011, the Settlement Management Division of the Barranquilla Regional Tax Directorate issued an assessment by which it modified the income tax return for the taxable year 2007, in the sense of disregarding as a net loss for the year the amount of $30. 509.961.000 and imposed a penalty for inaccuracy of $16.597.418.784, based on the questioning of the method that the taxpayer chose to establish the profit margin in the coal supply operation with its economic partner abroad. Carbones El Tesoro S.A. filed an appeal with the Administrative Court Judgement of the Administrative Court The Court decided in favour of Carbones El Tesoro S.A. and set aside the assessment of the tax authorities. Excerpts “4.4 In accordance with the above, and in accordance with the information provided by the plaintiff in the supporting documentation, the Chamber finds that the plaintiff set out in detail the economic reality of its operation of exploitation, production and sale of coal to its related party abroad, including the business and commercial structure, and the activities that each of the parties involved carried out. From this, it can be seen that the plaintiff operated as a producer with limited risks insofar as the risks assumed were limited to those related to its functions of exploitation, production and transport from the mine to delivery at the port, so that all those risks related to the functions of negotiating the price with the final customer, invoicing, collection, commercialisation, marketing, marketing, sales and distribution of the coal to the final customer were limited to those related to its functions of exploitation, production and transport from the mine to delivery at the port, collection, commercialisation, marketing, logistics and transport – including the contracting of vessels and the respective insurances – from the port of the vessel in Santa Marta to the delivery to the final client, were assumed by the foreign affiliate, since it was the one with the necessary infrastructure and expertise for such work, as indicated in the supporting documentation. 4.5. Considering the supporting documentation submitted by the applicant, the Board notes that the applicant presented the criteria used to eliminate possible comparables on the basis of the functions performed. To this end, it eliminated companies whose function in addition to coal mining was to carry out other activities such as electricity generation and/or distribution, or gas exploration and/or production, companies whose mining activity corresponded to products other than coal, companies that leased coal mines, or that were active in the oil industry without segmenting their financial statements by activity, companies that were in Chapter 11, and companies that did not have sufficient descriptive information on the business (…). This demonstrates that the plaintiff undertook a functional level analysis to support that, under the TNMM method, the information available and used presented a high level of comparability that was more suited to its particular situation. In the same vein, in its functional analysis, the complainant presented aspects related to the company’s management, production planning, mine contracting services, coal mining operations and the way it transported coal. He further stated that his responsibility was to plan the production of the El Tesoro mine, coordinate the receipt of coal purchased from local suppliers and transport it to Santa Marta, where it was loaded onto vessels contracted by his company. In addition, it included information about the market and sales, where it stated that it had not carried out any marketing, sales or distribution activities in relation to the exported products, given that 100% of the sales were made to its related party abroad, the latter being the one who decided the sales strategy. It added that the distribution and logistics of the delivery from the port in Santa Marta was the responsibility of its related party and the risks related to the coal were transferred to it once the coal was loaded onto the vessels (…). 4.6. On the other hand, as stated in legal basis 3, the CUP method compares the price of goods or services agreed between independent parties in comparable transactions. Its use implies that the economic characteristics of the transactions being compared must be analysed to determine a high degree of comparability. Thus, the CUP method is not the most appropriate when the conditions of the good are not sufficiently similar, or when the functions, including the risks assumed by the parties, cannot be adjusted in the particular case. When using commodity price lists (in a recognised and transparent commodity market), relevant circumstances such as the nature of the commodity, volume discounts, timing of transactions, terms of insurance, terms of delivery, and currency, among others, must be considered. In this case, the agreements and contracts that fix the terms of these factors are contrasted with those of third parties, in order to verify whether they coincide with those that would have been agreed in comparable circumstances. Under these premises, the Court finds that the defendant, through the use of the CUP method, applied a database in which the price, even though it referred to a good similar to the one traded – thermal coal – and to the Btus of this, was not sufficient to prove that the prices set in said database were for transactions in which the parties assumed similar functions, risks and negotiation terms as those of the transaction analysed. Nor is there any analysis of the appropriateness ...

Glencore Australia (CMPL) sold copper concentrate produced in Australia to its Swiss parent, Glencore International AG (GIAG). The tax authorities found, that the price paid by Glencore International AG to Glencore Australia for the copper concentrate in the relevant years according to a price sharing agreement was less than the price that might reasonably be expected to have been paid in an arm’s length dealing between independent parties. The tax assessment was brought to court by Glencore. The Federal Court of Australia found in favor of Glencore. The ruling of the Federal Court was appealed by the Australian tax authorities. On 6 November 2020, a Full Federal Court in a 3-0 ruling dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities. The tax authorities then submitted a application for special leave to the High Court. This application was dismissed by the Court in a judgement issued 20. May 2021. Click here for translation Australia vs Glencore 2021 ...

Glencore Australia (CMPL) sold copper concentrate produced in Australia to its Swiss parent, Glencore International AG (GIAG). The tax administration found, that the price paid by Glencore International AG to Glencore Australia for the copper concentrate in the relevant years according to a price sharing agreement was less than the price that might reasonably be expected to have been paid in an arm’s length dealing between independent parties. ‘The amended assessments included in the taxpayer’s assessable income additional amounts of $49,156,382 (2007), $83,228,784 (2008) and $108,675,756 (2009) referable to the consideration which the Commissioner considered would constitute an arm’s length payment for the copper concentrate sold to Glencore International AG in each of the relevant years. The Federal Court of Australia found in favor of Glencore. “Accordingly I find that the taxpayer has established that the prices that CMPL was paid by GIAG for the copper concentrate it supplied to GIAG under the February 2007 Agreement were within an arm’s length range and accordingly the taxpayer has discharged the onus of proof on it.” “In view of my conclusions, the objection decisions should be set aside and the amended assessments for the 2007, 2008 and 2009 income years set aside.“ The ruling of the Federal Court was appealed by the Australian tax authorities. On 6 November 2020, a Full Federal Court in a 3-0 ruling dismissed the appeal. Australia vs Glencore November 2020 ...

Following an audit of Mopani Copper Mines Plc. the Zambian Revenue Authority (ZRA) found that the price of copper sold to related party Glencore International AG had been significantly lower than the price of copper sold to third parties. A tax assessment was issued where the ZRA concluded that the internal pricing had not been determined in accordance with the arm’s length principle, and further that one of the main purposes for the mis-pricing had been to reduce tax liabilities. Mopani Copper Mines Plc. first appealed the decision to Zambia’s Tax Appeal Tribunal, and after a decision was handed down by the Tribunal in favor of the ZRA, a new appeal was filed with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed Mopani’s appeal and ruled in favor of the ZRA. App-024-2017-Mopani-Copper-Mines-Plc-Vs-Zambia-Revenue-Authority-20th-May-2020-Mambilima-Cj-Malila-And-Mutuna-JJS ...

Glencore Australia (CMPL) sold copper concentrate produced in Australia to its Swiss parent, Glencore International AG (GIAG). The tax administration found, that the price paid by Glencore International AG to Glencore Australia for the copper concentrate in the relevant years according to a price sharing agreement was less than the price that might reasonably be expected to have been paid in an arm’s length dealing between independent parties. ‘The amended assessments included in the taxpayer’s assessable income additional amounts of $49,156,382 (2007), $83,228,784 (2008) and $108,675,756 (2009) referrable to the consideration which the Commissioner considered would constitute an arm’s length payment for the copper concentrate sold to Glencore International AG in each of the relevant years. The Federal Court of Australia found in favor of Glencore. “Accordingly I find that the taxpayer has established that the prices that CMPL was paid by GIAG for the copper concentrate it supplied to GIAG under the February 2007 Agreement were within an arm’s length range and accordingly the taxpayer has discharged the onus of proof on it.” “In view of my conclusions, the objection decisions should be set aside and the amended assessments for the 2007, 2008 and 2009 income years set aside.“ On October 7 2019 it was announced that the Australian Tax Office will appeal the ruling of the Federal Court. 2019FCA1432 ...