In TC opinion of 18 November 2020 the US Tax Court agreed with the US tax authorities (IRS) that Coca-Cola’s US-based income should be increased by $9 billion in a dispute over royalties from its foreign-based licensees. The principal holding was that the Commissioner did not abuse his discretion in reallocating income to Coca-Cola using a “comparable profits method” (TNMM) that treated independent Coca-Cola bottlers as comparable parties. However, one question remained. Coca-Colas’s Brazilian subsidiary paid no actual royalties to Coca-Cola during 2007–2009. Rather, it compensated Coca-Cola for use of its intangibles by paying dividends of $886,823,232. The court held that the Brazilian subsidiary’s arm’s-length royalty obligation for 2007–2009 was actually about $1.768 billion, as determined by the IRS. But the court held that the dividends remitted in place of royalties should be deducted from that sum. This offset reduces the net transfer pricing adjustment to petitioner from the Brazilian supply point to about $882 million. Thus, the issue to be decided is whether this $882 million net transfer-pricing adjustment is barred by Brazilian law. During 2007–2009 Brazil capped the amounts of trademark royalties and technology transfer payments (collectively, royalties) that Brazilian companies could pay to foreign parent companies. Coca Cola contended that Brazilian law blocked the $882 million net transfer-pricing adjustment. IRS contended that the Brazilian legal restriction should be given no effect in determining the arm’s-length transfer price, relying on what is commonly called the “blocked income” regulation (Treas. Reg. § 1.482-1(h)(2)). According to tax authorities the “blocked income” regulation generally provides that foreign legal restrictions will be taken into account for transfer-pricing purposes only if four conditions are met, including the requirement that the restrictions must be “applicable to all similarly situated persons (both controlled and uncontrolled).” Judgement of the tax court The Tax Court sustained the transfer pricing adjustment in full. Excerpts “Allocation of Value Between Grandfathered Intangibles and Those Not Grandfathered Petitioner has shown that eight of TCCC’s trademarks were li-censed to the supply point before November 17, 1985. Those are the only intangibles in commercial use during 2007–2009 that were covered by the grandfather clause. We find that petitioner has failed to carry its burden of proving what portion of the Commissioner’s adjustment is at-tributable to income derived from this (relatively small) subset of the licensed intangibles. And the record does not contain data from which we could make a reliable estimate of that percentage.” “Because the supply point sold concentrate to preordained buyers, it had no occasion to use TCCC’s trademarks for economically significant marketing purposes. By contrast, the bottlers and service companies were much heavier users of TCCC’s trademarks. The bottlers placed those trademarks on every bottle and can they manufactured and on every delivery truck in their fleet. See id. at 264. And the service com-panies, which arranged consumer marketing, continuously exploited the trademarks in television, print, and social media advertising. See id. at 240, 263–64.” “We conclude that all non-trademark IP exploited by the Brazilian supply point was outside the scope of the grandfather clause. The blocked income regulation thus applies to that portion of the transfer-pricing adjustment attributable to exploitation of those intangible as-sets. We further find that this non-trademark IP represented the bulk of the value that the Brazilian supply point derived from use of TCCC’s intangibles generally. Petitioner has supplied no evidence that would enable us to determine, or even to guess, what percentage of the overall value was attributable to the residual intangible assets, i.e., the trademarks.” “In sum, petitioner has failed to satisfy its burden of proof in two major respects. It has offered no evidence that would enable us to determine what portion of the transfer-pricing adjustment is attributable to exploitation of the non-trademark IP, which we have found be the most valuable segment of the intangibles from the Brazilian supply point’s economic perspective. And petitioner has offered insufficient evidence to enable us to determine what portion of the transfer-pricing adjustment is attributable to exploitation of the 8 original core-product trademarks, as opposed to the 60 other core-product trademarks and the entire universe of non-core-product trademarks. Because petitioner has failed to establish what portion of the aggregate transfer-pricing adjustment might be attributable to exploitation of the eight grandfathered trademarks, we have no alternative but to sustain that adjustment in full.” ...

Eli Lilly ČR imports pharmaceutical products purchased from Eli Lilly Export S.A. (Swiss sales and marketing hub) into the Czech Republic and Slovakia and distributes them to local distributors. The arrangement between the Czech company and the Swiss company is based on a Service Contract in which Eli Lilly ČR is named as the service provider to Eli Lilly Export S.A. (the principal). Eli Lilly ČR was selling the products at a lower price than the price it purchased them for from Eli Lilly Export S.A. According to the company this was due to local price controls of pharmaceuticals. However, Eli Lilly ČR was also paid for providing marketing services by the Swiss HQ, which ensured that Eli Lilly ČR was profitable, despite selling the products at a loss. Eli Lilly ČR reported the marketing services as a provision of services with the place of supply outside of the Czech Republic; therefore, the income from such supply was exempt from VAT in the Czech Republic. In 2016 a tax assessment was issued for FY 2011 in which VAT was added to the marketing services-income. An appeal was filed with the Administrative Court by Eli Lilly, but the Court dismissed the appeal and decided in favour of the tax authorities. An appeal was then filed with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgement of the Court The appeal of Eli Lilly was again dismissed and the decision of the administrative court – and the assessment of additional VAT upheld. “The complainant’s objections were not capable of overturning the conclusion that the supply of marketing services and the supply of the distribution (sale) of medicines were provided to different entities and that, in the eyes of the average customer, they were not one indivisible supply.” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

“3M Parent” is the parent company of the 3M Group and owns the Group’s trademarks. Other intellectual property, including patents and unpatented technology, is owned by “3M Sub-parent”, a second-tier wholly owned US subsidiary of 3M Parent. “3M Brazil” has used trademarks owned by 3M US in its business operations. 3M Brazil’s use of these trademarks was governed by three trademark licences entered into by 3M Parent and 3M Brazil in 1998. Each licence covered a separate set of trademarks. Under the terms of the licences, 3M Brazil paid 3M Parent a royalty equal to 1% of its sales of the trademarked products. Some products sold by 3M Brazil were covered by trademarks covered by more than one of the three trademark licences. For such products, 3M Brazil and 3M Parent calculated the trademark royalties using a stacking principle whereby, for example, if a particular product used trademarks covered by all three trademark licences, the royalties would be 3% of the sales of that product. By calculating royalties using this stacking principle, 3M Brazil paid trademark royalties to 3M Parent in 2006. 3M Brazil also used patents and unpatented technology owned by 3M Sub-parent in its operations. 3M Brazil paid no patent royalties and made no technology transfer payments to 3M Sub-parent. There was no patent licence or technology transfer agreement between 3M Sub-parent and 3M Brazil. On its 2006 consolidated federal income tax return, 3M Parent reported as income the trademark royalties paid by 3M Brazil to 3M Parent in 2006. In the notice of deficiency, the IRS determined that the income of the 3M Parent consolidated group under I.R.C. sec. 482 to reflect 3M Brazil’s use of intellectual property owned by 3M Parent and 3M Sub-parent. The increase in income determined in the notice of deficiency represents an arm’s length compensation for the intellectual property used by 3M Brazil. 3M Parent’s position was that the I.R.C. sec. 482 allocation should be the maximum amount 3M Brazil could have paid for the intellectual property in question under Brazilian law, less related expenses. 3M Parent also contended that the entire regulation was invalid because income could not be allocated to a taxpayer that did not receive income and could not legally receive the income. The IRS’s position was that the I.R.C. sec. 482 adjustment does not take into account the effect of the Brazilian statutory restrictions unless certain conditions are met, and that the Brazilian statutory restrictions did not meet those conditions. The blocked income rules in section 1.482-1(h)(2) require, among other things, that the foreign law restriction apply equally to controlled and uncontrolled parties, be publicly announced, and prevent the payment or receipt of an arm’s length amount in any form. Tax Court opinion The US Tax Court agreed with the IRS that 3M’s US income should be increased by royalties from 3M Brazil’s use of its trademarks and other intellectual property – without regard to the legal restrictions on related party royalty payments in Brazil ...

Eli Lilly ČR imports pharmaceutical products purchased from Eli Lilly Export S.A. (Swiss sales and marketing hub) into the Czech Republic and Slovakia and distributes them to local distributors. The arrangement between the local company and Eli Lilly Export S.A. is based on a Service Contract in which Eli Lilly ČR is named as the service provider to Eli Lilly Export S.A. (the principal). Eli Lilly ČR was selling the products at a lower price than the price it purchased them for from Eli Lilly Export S.A. According to the company this was due to local price controls of pharmaceuticals. At the same time, Eli Lilly ČR was also paid for providing marketing services by the Swiss HQ, which ensured that Eli Lilly ČR was profitable, despite selling the products at a loss. Eli Lilly ČR reported the marketing services as a provision of services with the place of supply outside of the Czech Republic; therefore, the income from such supply was exempt from VAT in the Czech Republic. In 2016 a tax assessment was issued for FY 2011 in which VAT was added to the marketing services-income and later similar assessments were issued for the following years. An appeal was filed with the District Court by Eli Lilly which was dismissed by the Court. An appeal was then filed with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgement of the Court The Supreme Administrative Court ruled in favor of Eli Lilly – annulled the judgement of the District Court and set aside the assessment of the tax authorities. “The Supreme Administrative Court found no reason to depart from the conclusions of the judgment in Case No 3 Afs 54/2020, even on the basis of the defendant’s additional arguments. Indeed, the applicant can be fully accepted that it is at odds with the reasoning of the Supreme Administrative Court and puts forward arguments on issues which are rather irrelevant to the assessment of the case. First of all, the defendant does not dispute in any relevant way that the disputed supplies were provided to two different entities (the distribution of medicines to the complainant’s customers and the provision of marketing services to Eli Lilly Export), and that the ‘average customer’ cannot perceive those supplies as a single supply. This conclusion does not in any way undermine the defendant’s reiteration of the complainant’s assertion at the income tax audit that, for the purposes of assessing the correctness of the transfer pricing set between the complainant and Eli Lilly Export in terms of section 23(7) of the Income Tax Act, the marketing service should be regarded as an integral part of the distribution of the medicines and cannot be viewed in isolation when assessing profitability. In terms of transfer pricing, the economic interdependence of the two activities was assessed, which was essential only to determine whether the profitability of each activity should be compared separately with entities carrying out only the relevant activity. However, the aggregate assessment of these activities in terms of Section 23(7) of the Income Tax Act, which involves offsetting profits and losses from different types of business activities and comparing profitability with entities performing a similar role (i.e. performing both marketing and distribution), does not necessarily mean that there is a single transaction for VAT purposes. This issue is assessed separately in accordance with the aspects of the VAT Act and the VAT Directive respectively. [32] Nor can the defendant’s other arguments, which it repeats in support of the conclusion that the provision of marketing services constitutes a supply incidental to the domestic sale of medicines, be accepted. It does not follow from the judgment in Case 3 Afs 54/202073 that the concept of ‘third party consideration’ cannot exist. The Supreme Administrative Court has not denied that the total value of the consideration received from the final customer for the purposes of determining the tax base may, in general, also include payments from third parties (see, for example, paragraphs 62 et seq. of the judgment referred to above). However, in the context of the present case, in the case of the distribution of pharmaceuticals, the Court held that the consideration for marketing services could not be regarded as part of the value of the consideration, since those services were not provided to ‘customers’ who were merely recipients of marketing information. The consideration for those services was not then spent on behalf of or for the benefit of the customers. As regards the defendant’s reference to the judgment of the CJEU in Firma Z, the conclusions expressed there concern a different factual situation and legal issue. The substantive issue was the offsetting of a reduction in the taxable amount of one supply against the taxable amount of another supply, which is excluded under the common VAT system. However, as noted above, in the present case the complainant does not supply any other supply to its customers at the same time as the pharmaceuticals. Therefore, if the conclusion of the tax administration were accepted, it would have received a higher amount of VAT than the amount paid for the supply which was the only supply received by the customer from the complainant (the pharmaceuticals). The complainant’s final, potential or immediate customers cannot be the recipients of a marketing service at all (see above). [33] Nor can the defendant’s view that the method of pricing the marketing services shows an ‘unquestionable link’ between the marketing services and the sale of medicines be accepted. In that connection, the defendant points out that the pricing of marketing services is not based solely on the costs of marketing, but also on the costs of distributing the goods (medicines). It therefore concludes that it is a payment by a third party (Eli Lilly Export) on top of the price of the medicines which the complainant sells at regulated prices. This argument of the defendant cannot stand. As a general rule, it is a matter for the parties to negotiate the price or the method of calculating it. Furthermore, ...

A cost sharing payment, for the purposes of section 936(h)(5)(C)(i)(I), is calculated using the provisions of section 936 and the regulations thereunder and the provisions of this paragraph (h)(3). The provisions relating to cost sharing under section 482 do not apply to payments made pursuant to an election under section 936(h)(5)(C)(i)(I). Similarly, a profit split payment, for the purposes of section 936(h)(5)(C)(ii)(I), is calculated using the provisions of section 936 and the regulations thereunder, not section 482 and the regulations thereunder ...

If a possessions corporation makes an election under section 936(h)(5)(C)(i)(I), the corporation must make a section 936 cost sharing payment that is at least equal to the payment that would be required under section 482 if the electing corporation were a foreign corporation. In determining the payment that would be required under section 482 for this purpose, the provisions of §§ 1.482-1 and 1.482-4 will be applied, and to the extent relevant to the valuation of intangibles, §§ 1.482-5 and 1.482-6 will be applied. The provisions of section 936(h)(5)(C)(i)(II) (Effect of Election – electing corporation treated as owner of intangible property) do not apply until the payment that would be required under section 482 has been determined ...

...

The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that Country FC law permits the payment of a royalty, but limits the amount to 5% of sales, and Sub pays the 5% royalty to Parent. Parent demonstrates the existence of a comparable uncontrolled transaction for purposes of the comparable uncontrolled transaction method in which an uncontrolled party accepted a royalty rate of 5%. Given the evidence of the comparable uncontrolled transaction, the 5% royalty rate is determined to be the arm’s length royalty rate ...

The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that the laws of FC do not prevent distributions from corporations to their shareholders. Sub distributes an amount equal to 8% of its sales in country FC. Because the laws of FC did not expressly prevent all forms of payment from Sub to Parent, Parent cannot validly elect the deferred income method of accounting with respect to any of the arm’s length royalty amount. In appropriate circumstances, the district director may permit the 8% that was distributed to be treated as payment by Sub of the royalty allocated to Parent, under the provisions of § 1.482-1(g) (Collateral adjustments) ...

(i) The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that Sub, although it makes no royalty payment to Parent, arranges with an unrelated intermediary to make payments equal to an arm’s length amount on its behalf to Parent. (ii) The district director makes an allocation of royalty income to Parent, based on the arm’s length royalty rate of 10%. Further, the district director determines that because the arrangement with the third party had the effect of circumventing the FC law, the requirements of paragraph (h)(2)(ii)(D) of this section are not satisfied. Thus, Parent could not validly elect the deferred income method of accounting, and the allocation of royalty income cannot be treated as deferrable. In appropriate circumstances, the district director may permit the amount of the distribution to be treated as payment by Sub of the royalty allocated to Parent, under the provisions of § 1.482-1(g) (Collateral adjustments) ...

Parent licenses an intangible to Sub. FC law generally prohibits payments by any person within FC to recipients outside the country. The FC law meets the requirements of paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this section. There is no evidence of unrelated parties entering into transactions under comparable circumstances for a comparable period of time, and the foreign legal restrictions will not be taken into account in determining the arm’s length amount. The arm’s length royalty rate for the use of the intangible property in the absence of the foreign restriction is 10% of Sub’s sales in country FC. However, because the requirements of paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this section are satisfied, Parent can elect the deferred income method of accounting by attaching to its timely filed U.S. income tax return a written statement that satisfies the requirements of paragraph (h)(2)(iii)(B) of this section ...

The following examples, in which Sub is a Country FC subsidiary of U.S. corporation, Parent, illustrate this paragraph (h)(2) ...

If the requirements of paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this section are satisfied, any portion of the arm’s length amount, the payment or receipt of which is prevented because of applicable foreign legal restrictions, will be treated as deferrable until payment or receipt of the relevant item ceases to be prevented by the foreign legal restriction. For purposes of the deferred income method of accounting under this paragraph (h)(2)(iv), deductions (including the cost or other basis of inventory and other assets sold or exchanged) and credits properly chargeable against any amount so deferred, are subject to deferral under the provisions of § 1.461– 1(a)(4). In addition, income is deferrable under this deferred income method of accounting only to the extent that it exceeds the related deductions already claimed in open taxable years to which the foreign legal restriction applied ...

If a foreign legal restriction prevents the payment or receipt of part or all of the arm’s length amount that is due with respect to a controlled transaction, the restricted amount may be treated as deferrable if the following requirements are met – (A) The controlled taxpayer establishes to the satisfaction of the district director that the payment or receipt of the arm’s length amount was prevented because of a foreign legal restriction and circumstances described in paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this section; and (B) The controlled taxpayer whose U.S. tax liability may be affected by the foreign legal restriction elects the deferred income method of accounting, as described in paragraph (h)(2)(iv) of this section, on a written statement attached to a timely U.S. income tax return (or an amended return) filed before the IRS first contacts any member of the controlled group concerning an examination of the return for the taxable year to which the foreign legal restriction applies. A written statement furnished by a taxpayer subject to the Coordinated Examination Program will be considered an amended return for purposes of this paragraph (h)(2)(iii)(B) if it satisfies the requirements of a qualified amended return for purposes of § 1.6664-2(c)(3) as set forth in those regulations or as the Commissioner may prescribe by applicable revenue procedures. The election statement must identify the affected transactions, the parties to the transactions, and the applicable foreign legal restrictions ...

Foreign legal restrictions (whether temporary or permanent) will be taken into account for purposes of this paragraph (h)(2) only if, and so long as, the conditions set forth in paragraphs (h)(2)(ii) (A) through (D) of this section are met. (A) The restrictions are publicly promulgated, generally applicable to all similarly situated persons (both controlled and uncontrolled), and not imposed as part of a commercial transaction between the taxpayer and the foreign sovereign; (B) The taxpayer (or other member of the controlled group with respect to which the restrictions apply) has exhausted all remedies prescribed by foreign law or practice for obtaining a waiver of such restrictions (other than remedies that would have a negligible prospect of success if pursued); (C) The restrictions expressly prevented the payment or receipt, in any form, of part or all of the arm’s length amount that would otherwise be required under section 482 (for example, a restriction that applies only to the deductibility of an expense for tax purposes is not a restriction on payment or receipt for this purpose); and (D) The related parties subject to the restriction did not engage in any arrangement with controlled or uncontrolled parties that had the effect of circumventing the restriction, and have not otherwise violated the restriction in any material respect ...

The district director will take into account the effect of a foreign legal restriction to the extent that such restriction affects the results of transactions at arm’s length. Thus, a foreign legal restriction will be taken into account only to the extent that it is shown that the restriction affected an uncontrolled taxpayer under comparable circumstances for a comparable period of time. In the absence of evidence indicating the effect of the foreign legal restriction on uncontrolled taxpayers, the restriction will be taken into account only to the extent provided in paragraphs (h)(2) (iii) and (iv) of this section (Deferred income method of accounting) ...

...

As with any controlled transaction, the accurate delineation of financial transactions requires an analysis of the factors affecting the performance of businesses in the industry sector in which the MNE group operates. Because differences exist among industry sectors, factors such as the particular point of an economic, business or product cycle, the effect of government regulations, or the availability of financial resources in a given industry are relevant features that have to be considered to accurately delineate the controlled transaction. This examination will take account of the fact that MNE groups operating in different sectors may require, for example, different amounts and types of financing due to different capital intensity levels between industries, or may require different levels of short-term cash balances due to different commercial needs between industries. Where the relevant MNEs are regulated, such as financial services entities subject to regulations consistent with recognised industry standards (e.g. Basel requirements), due regard should be had to the constraints those regulations impose upon them ...

In 2019, the Danish parent company of the group, EAC Invest A/S, had been granted a ruling by the tax tribunal that, in the period 2008-2011, due to, inter alia, quite exceptional circumstances involving currency restrictions in Venezuela, the parent company should not be taxed on interest on a claim for unpaid royalties relating to trademarks covered by licensing agreements between the parent company and its then Venezuelan subsidiary, Plumrose Latinoamericana C.A. The Tax tribunal had also found that neither a payment of extraordinary dividends by the Venezuelan subsidiary to the Danish parent company in 2012 nor a restructuring of the group in 2013 could trigger a deferred taxation of royalties. The tax authorities appealed against the decisions to the High Court. Judgement of the High Court The High Court upheld the decisions of the tax tribunal with amended grounds and dismissed the claims of the tax authorities. Excerpts: Interest on unpaid royalty claim “The High Court agrees that, as a starting point, between group-related parties such as H1 and the G2 company, questions may be raised regarding the interest on a receivable arising from a failure to pay royalties, as defined in section 2 of the Tax Assessment Act. The question is whether, when calculating H1’s taxable income for the income years in question, there is a basis for fixing interest income to H1 on the unpaid royalty claim by G2, within the meaning of Paragraph 2 of the Tax Assessment Act. Such a fixing of interest must, where appropriate, be made on terms which could have been obtained if the claim had arisen between independent parties. The right to an adjustment is thus based, inter alia, on the assumptions that the failure to pay interest on the royalty claim has no commercial justification and that there is in fact a basis for comparison in the form of contractual terms between a debtor for a claim in bolivar in Venezuela and a creditor in another country independent of the debtor.” … “In the light of the very special circumstances set out above, and following an overall assessment, the Court considers that there are no grounds for finding that the failure to recover H1’s royalty claim from G2 was not commercially justified. The High Court also notes that the Ministry of Taxation has not demonstrated the existence of a genuine basis for comparison in the form of contractual terms for a claim in bolivar between a debtor in Venezuela and a creditor in a third country independent of the debtor. The High Court therefore finds that there is no basis under Section 2 of the Tax Assessment Act, cf. Section 3B(5) of the Tax Control Act, cf. Para 8 cf. Section 5(3), there is a basis for increasing G3-A/S’s income in the income years in question by a fixed rate of interest on the unpaid royalty claim with G2 company.” Dividend distribution in 2012 reclassified as royalty “…the Court of Appeal, after an overall assessment, accepts that the fact that the G2 company did not waive outstanding royalty receivables was solely a consequence of the very specific currency restrictions in Venezuela, that the payment of dividends was commercially motivated and was not due to a common interest between H1 and the G2 company, and that therefore, under Article 2(2) of the Tax Code, there is no need to pay dividends to the G2 company. 1(3), there are grounds for reclassifying the dividend distribution as a taxable deduction from the royalty claim, as independent parties could not have acted as claimed by the Tax Ministry.” Claim in respect of purchase price for shares in 2013 set-off against dividend reclassified as royalty “… For the reasons given by the Tax Court and, moreover, in the light of the very special circumstances of Venezuela set out above, the Court finds that there is no basis under section 2 of the Tax Assessment Act for reclassifying the claim of the G2 company against H2, in respect of the share purchase price for the G9 company, from a set-off against dividends due to an instalment of royalties due.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

Natura Cosmeticos S/A had been issued a tax assessment for FY 1999 to 2001. In the assessment interest income from loans granted to foreign group entities had been added to the taxable income of the company. NATURA COSMETICOS S/A stated that the transfer pricing rule provided for in paragraph 1 of article 22 of Law 9,430/96 did not apply. The rule determines that “in the case of a loan with a related person, the lending legal entity, domiciled in Brazil, must recognize, as financial income corresponding to the operation, at least the amount calculated in accordance with the provisions of this article”. Article 22 provides that interest paid to a related person, when arising from a contract not registered with the Central Bank, will only be deductible for purposes of determining taxable income “up to the amount that does not exceed the amount calculated based on the Libor rate”. The remittance to related legal entities abroad was made by means of a transfer in reais, registered in the Central Bank Information System (Sisbacen). For this reason, the operation was submitted to the control of the regulatory authority and there was no legal obligation at the time regarding registration with the BC. Judgement of the Conselho Administrativo de Recursos Fiscais A split decision was handed down in favor of Natura Cosméticos S/A. The majority of counselors understood that the transfer price adjustments in the loan granted by the legal entity domiciled in the country to the related person were not applicable, “to the extent that the exchange or international transfer in reais is registered with Sisbacen, and the supporting documentation of the loan has been presented to the exchange operating bank”. They voted to approve the appeal of Natura Cosméticos S/A. The minority of counselors understood that the rule in paragraph 4 does not apply in the specific case. “The extensive interpretation proposed by the appellant, in the sense of accepting that the simple registration with Sisbacen of the remittance of resources to the linked companies abroad may be equivalent to registration with the BC, is not supported by any normative legal act”. The counselor voted to deny the appeal to prevent the court from admitting “minorization of applicable taxation without support by law”. They voted to dismiss the appeal of Natura Cosméticos S/A. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

Bluestar Silicones France (BSF), now Elkem Silicones France SAS (ESF), produces silicones and various products that it sells to other companies belonging to the Bluestar Silicones International group. The company was audited for the financial years 2007 – 2008 and an assessment was issued. According to the tax authorities, the selling prices of the silicone products had been below the arm’s length price and the company had refrained from invoicing of management exepences and cost of secondment of employees . In the course of the proceedings agreement had been reached on the pricing of products. Hence, in dispute before the court was the issue of lacking invoicing of management exepences and cost of secondment of employees for the benefit of the Chinese and Brazilian subsidiaries of the Group. According to the company there had been no hidden transfer of profits; its method of constructing the group’s prices has not changed and compliance with the arm’s length principle has been demonstrated by a study by the firm Taj using the transactional net margin method and the criticisms of its prices are unfounded. The results must be analyzed in the context of heavy investments made by the Bluestar Silicones International sub-group, 80% of which it financed, and which are at the root of the heavy losses recorded in the sub-group’s first fiscal years for the years 2007 to 2009. Furthermore, the business tax adjustments was considered unjustified by the company since, the transfer prices charged did not constitute transfers of profits; Decision of the Court No charge of management fees from Brazil and Hong Kong: “Under these conditions, the administration was justified in considering that BSF’s renunciation to invoice management fees to the Chinese and Brazilian companies of the Bluestar Silicones International group constituted an abnormal act of management. It was thus entitled to correct the company’s profit and also to correct the company’s added value for the determination of its business tax.” No charge of cost of provision of employees in China: “While BSF claims that it derived a direct benefit from the provision of these three expatriates through the development of sales by the Chinese subsidiary, it does not establish this, even though it has been shown that the project manager and the two technicians worked at the Jiangxi site, which was acquiring the technology needed to manufacture products similar to those previously purchased by the Chinese subsidiary from BSF and therefore potentially competing with it. The impossibility of charging such fees due to Chinese legislation has also not been demonstrated, nor has any compensation resulting from insufficient transfer pricing. Under these conditions, the applicant company does not demonstrate that the advantage granted to the Chinese company had sufficient consideration in the interest of its operations and, consequently, was justified by normal management of its own interests.” Additional withholding tax and business tax However, the Court did find that the company was “entitled to argue that the Montreuil Administrative Court wrongly refused to discharge it from the additional withholding tax contributions charged to it for the financial year ended in 2007 and the additional business tax contributions for the year 2007 resulting from the correction made by the tax authorities of its transfer prices practiced with the company BSI Hong Kong.” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

The disputed issue concerns the purchase prices of natural gas by SC A from an affiliated company SC B. By orders of the National Energy Regulatory Authority (NERA), the prices of supply of natural gas to domestic and non-domestic consumers were regulated and fixed, but not the price at which SC A purchased it from the SC B. The tax authority issued an assessment where the price of the controlled gas transaction was determined by reference to profit level indicators of comparable businesses. SC A brought the decision to the Romanian courts. Judgement of the Court of Appeal The appeal of SC A was dismissed and the assessment of the tax authorities upheld. Excerpt “In the present case, in order to adjust the expenses for the cost of the goods purchased from SC “B.” SRL, based on the level of the central market trend, the tax body used the information provided by the ORBIS and FISCNET applications. Following the comparative analysis of the information provided by the two IT applications, the tax body identified 22 potentially comparable companies in Romania, of which only one met the qualitative criteria, which is why it correctly moved to a higher search level, namely that of the European Union, identifying 6 companies that were comparable in terms of quantity and quality. In this regard, it was noted that, according to Article 8 of OPANAF No 442/2016, transactions between related persons are considered to be carried out according to the market value principle if the financial indicator of the transaction/transaction value (margin/profit/price) falls within the range of comparison. The following provisions shall be respected in determining the comparator range: 1. the comparability analysis will consider territorial criteria in the following order: national, European Union, pan-European, international; 2. reasonable availability of data at the time of transfer pricing or at the time of their documentation, for which the taxpayer/payer being verified provides supporting documentation for the data used at the time of transfer pricing; 3. the margin of comparison is the range of price or margin/profit values for comparable transactions between independent comparable companies; 4. for the determination of outliers, the margin of comparison shall be divided into 4 segments. The maximum and minimum segments represent the extreme results. The range of comparison is the range of price or margin/output values for comparable transactions between independent comparators, after eliminating the extreme results from the margin of comparison; 5. the extreme results within the margin of comparison shall not be used in determining and calculating the estimate/adjustment; 6. if the median value cannot be identified (the median value is the value at the middle of the range of comparison), the arithmetic mean of the two middle values of the range of comparison shall be taken. In so far as the tax authority complied with the legal procedure for estimating the purchase prices, as required by ANAF Order 442/2016, the appellant’s criticisms are unfounded, especially as they do not essentially concern the specific procedure carried out by the tax authority. Consequently, the appellant’s criticisms, which relate to the ground for annulment relied on, are unfounded, which is why the appeal was dismissed as unfounded.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

As with any controlled transaction, the accurate delineation of financial transactions requires an analysis of the factors affecting the performance of businesses in the industry sector in which the MNE group operates. Because differences exist among industry sectors, factors such as the particular point of an economic, business or product cycle, the effect of government regulations, or the availability of financial resources in a given industry are relevant features that have to be considered to accurately delineate the controlled transaction. This examination will take account of the fact that MNE groups operating in different sectors may require, for example, different amounts and types of financing due to different capital intensity levels between industries, or may require different levels of short-term cash balances due to different commercial needs between industries. Where the relevant MNEs are regulated, such as financial services entities subject to regulations consistent with recognised industry standards (e.g. Basel requirements), due regard should be had to the constraints those regulations impose upon them ...

Eli Lilly ČR imports pharmaceutical products purchased from Eli Lilly Export S.A. (Swiss sales and marketing hub) into the Czech Republic and Slovakia and distributes them to local distributors. The arrangement between the local company and Eli Lilly Export S.A. is based on a Service Contract in which Eli Lilly ČR is named as the service provider to Eli Lilly Export S.A. (the principal). Eli Lilly ČR was selling the products at a lower price than the price it purchased them for from Eli Lilly Export S.A. According to the company this was due to local price controls of pharmaceuticals. Eli Lilly ČR was also paid for providing marketing services by the Swiss HQ, which ensured that Eli Lilly ČR was profitable, despite selling the products at a loss. Eli Lilly ČR reported the marketing services as a provision of services with the place of supply outside of the Czech Republic; therefore, the income from such supply was exempt from VAT in the Czech Republic. In 2016 a tax assessment was issued for FY 2011 in which VAT was added to the marketing services-income. Judgement of the Court The Court dismissed the appeal of Eli Lilly CR s.r.o. and decided in favour of the tax authorities. According to the court marketing services constituted partial supply that was part of the distribution activities and should have been considered, from the VAT perspective, a secondary activity used for the purpose of obtaining benefit from the main activity. Therefore, Eli Lilly CR s.r.o should have been paying VAT on income from the marketing services. “a customer purchasing medicinal products from the claimant is the recipient of a single indivisible supply (distribution and marketing),” “the aim of such marketing is certainly to increase the customer awareness of medicines distributed by the claimant, and, as a result to increase the marketability of these medicines” For Eli Lilly Export S.A., marketing was a secondary benefit. Eli Lilly CR s.r.o. was the owner of the products when the marketing services were provided. Eli Lilly Export S.A. was not the manufacturer of the products and did not hold the distribution license for the Czech market. Therefore, Eli Lilly Export S.A. could not be the recipient of the marketing services provided by Eli Lilly CR s.r.o. Hence, the payment received by Eli Lilly CR s.r.o. for marketing services was in fact “a payment received from a third person”. An appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court was filed on 14 February 2020 by Eli Lilly CR. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

These two triel cases concerned the calculation of the basis for tax depreciation (value of assets) in a number of Danish Water utility companies which had been established in the years 2006 – 2010 in connection with a public separation of water supply and wastewater utility activities. The valuation of the assets would form the basis for the water utility companies’ tax depreciation. The transfer was controlled and subject to Danish arm’s length provisions. The Supreme Court found that the calculation method (DCF) used by the Danish Tax Agency did not provide a suitable basis for calculating the tax value of the transferred assets. The Court stated that for water supply and wastewater treatment it is true that the companies are legaly obligated to provide these facilities and that the governmental regulation of the activity – the “rest in itself” principle – means that no income can be earned on the activities. However, the decisive factor is the value of these assets for the water utility companies – not the fact that no income could be earned on the activity. The Supreme Court found that a method by which the regulatory value is calculated as an average of the written down value and the acquisition value (the so-called POLKA value) was a reasonable approach to value of the assets under the arm’s length provisions. The Supreme Court did not have the basis to determine the POLKA value and the cases was returned to the Tax Agency for consideration. The district court had come to another conclusion. Case 27/2018 Click here for translation Case 28/2018 Click here for translation ...

In the Tokyo High Court judgment, dated 13 May 2015, Honda Motor Company Limited, a major Japanese automobile manufacturer, obtained a cancellation of a tax assessment of ¥25.4 billion. The court held that the tax authorities had erred in the selection of companies comparable to the tested party (Honda’s foreign subsidiary in Brazil). The tested party was doing business in the Free Economic Zone of Manaus in Brazil – whereas the selected comparables was located outside the zone. The existence of Manaus Tax benefit was considered a market condition affecting the degree of profitability. Hence profits of the Honda subsidiary in Manaus could not be determined based on similar independent Brazilian companies outside the zone and therefore not comparable. Click here for English Translation ...

A Japanese distributor “Banana Corp” imported Ecuadorian bananas from a group company for wholesale in Japan. The Japanese tax administration ruled that the amount of consideration paid by Japanese distributor had exceeded the arm’s length price and issued an assessment of additional tax and penalties for FY 1999 – 2004. At first Banana Corp brought the case before the regional court who decision in favour of the tax administration. Banana Corp appealed this decision to Tokyo High Court. Tokyo High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the regional court. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

The “Banana Group” is based in Ecuador and is engaged in the business of exporting Ecuadorian bananas. The Japanese distributor was part of the Banana Group. An Ecuadorian group company purchases bananas produced on plantations in Ecuador, exports and sells them to another intermediate group company, who in turn sells them to the Japanese distributor for wholesale in Japan. At issue was the arms length price of the bananas imported by the Japanese distributor. The tax administration held that the price paid for the bananas had been to high and issued an assessment for FY 1999-2004. The Japanese company disagreed and brought the case to court. Decision of the Court The Tokyo District court decided in favour of the tax administration and upheld the tax assessment. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...