Sogefi Filtration S.p.A. received a notice of assessment for the 2003 financial year concerning various issues, including the deduction of royalties paid for the use of a trademark, interest income on a loan granted to a foreign subsidiary and the denial of a tax credit for dividends received by a French subsidiary. Sogefi appealed to the Regional Court, which ruled largely in its favour. Not satisfied with the decision, the tax authorities appealed to the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Supreme Court On the issue of transfer pricing the Supreme Court clarified, that the French arm’s length provision is not an anti-avoidance rule. Excerpt “4.1. The plea – admissible as it does not concern questions of merit but the correct application of the rule – is well founded. 4.2. It should be noted, in fact, that Art. 76 (now 110) tuir does not incorporate an anti-avoidance regulation in the strict sense, but is aimed at repressing the economic phenomenon of transfer pricing (shifting of taxable income following transactions between companies belonging to the same group and subject to different national regulations) considered in itself, so that the proof incumbent on the tax authorities does not concern the higher national taxation or the actual tax advantage obtained by the taxpayer, but only the existence of transactions, between related companies, at a price apparently lower than the normal price, it being incumbent on the taxpayer, pursuant to the ordinary rules of proximity of proof under Art. 2697 et.e. and on the subject of tax deductions, the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that such transactions took place for market values to be considered normal in accordance with the specific provisions of Article 9(3) of the Income Tax Code (see Court of Cassation no. 11949 of 2012; Court of Cassation no. 10742 of 2013; Court of Cassation no. 18392 of 2015; Court of Cassation no. 7493 of 2016). Such conclusion, moreover, is in line with the ratio of the legislation that is to be found “in the arm’s length principle set forth in Article 9 of the OECD Model Convention””, so that the assessment on the basis of the normal value concerns the “economic substance of the transaction” that is to be compared “with similar transactions carried out under comparable circumstances in free market conditions between independent parties” (see. in particular, Court of Cassation No. 27018 of 15/11/2017 which, in recomposing the different interpretative options that have emerged in the Court’s case law, expressly stated “the ratio of the rules set forth in Article 11O, paragraph 7, of the Income Tax Code must be identified in the arm’s length principle, excluding any qualification of the same as an anti-avoidance rule”). Incidentally, it should be noted that the current OECD Guidelines, in terms not dissimilar from what has been provided for since the 1970s, are unequivocal in clarifying (Chapter VII of the 2010 Guidelines, paras. 7.14 and 7.15 with respect to the identification and remuneration of financing as intra-group services, as well as 7. 19, 7.29 and 7.31 with respect to the determination of the payment), that the remuneration of an intra-group loan must, as a rule, take place through the payment of an interest rate corresponding to that which would be expected between independent companies in comparable circumstances. 4.3. However, in the case in point, the CTR excluded the application of the institute on the assumption that “a more favourable interest rate granted to a subsidiary for the acquisition of a company operating in the same sector in Spain is not necessarily of an avoidance nature” and, therefore, although faced with the objective fact of the divergence from the normal value, it excluded its relevance on the basis of an irrelevant assumption extraneous to the provision, the application of which it misapplied, resulting, in part, in the cassation of the judgment.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

The Supreme Tax Court has held that a parent company cannot be deemed to have earned income from allowing its Polish subsidiary to register locally in the group name. A German business was active in a field of patented technology associated with its own firm name, “B”. It allowed its Polish subsidiaries to register in that name, “B Sp.z.o.o.”, but made an appropriate charge for the use of the technology. It also did not authorise the Polish companies to use its logo, but left it up to them to design their own. The tax office maintained that the group name was a valuable intangible and demanded an income adjustment to reflect its use by foreign subsidiaries. However, the Supreme Tax Court has now confirmed its previous case law in holding that the mere use of the group name in the company registration of a subsidiary – including the right to trade under that name – does not give rise to a royalty entitlement of the parent. Such entitlement only arises in connection with other associated rights, such as the use of a logo or technology, in which case, the benefit from the use of intangibles should be seen as a package. However, this did not arise in the case at issue, as the rights to the logo had not been assigned and the rights to the technology had been charged for separately. Se also the publication [Verwaltungsanweisung] from the German Bundesministerium der Finanzen (BMF) 2017-04-07-namensnutzung-im-konzern and the prior German ruling on the issue I R 12/99. The prior ruling of the Local Tax Court is found in case No 4 k 1053 11 e. Click here for translation ...

The Local Tax Court found that the arm’s-length principle requires a licence to be paid for the use of group name where the name/trademark has value in itself. The decision of the Local Court was later overturned by the Supreme Tax Court ruling in Case no. I R 22 14  Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

A German group company’s payment for use of the group name was not found to be deductible under German transfer pricing regulations. Guidance on payments for use of the group name has been provided in the Transfer Pricing Guidelines 6.81 – 6.85 and 7.12. As a general rule, no payment should be recognised for transfer pricing purposes for simple recognition of group membership or the use of the group name merely to reflect the fact of group membership. However, where one member of the group is the owner of a trademark or other intangible for the group name, and where use of the name provides a financial benefit to members of the group other than the member legally owning such intangible, it is reasonable to conclude that a payment for use would have been made in arm’s length transactions. In determining the amount of payment with respect to a group name, it is important to consider the amount of the financial benefit to the user of the name attributable to use of that name, the costs and benefits associated with other alternatives, and the relative contributions to the value of the name made by the legal owner, and the entity using the name in the form of functions performed, assets used and risks assumed. Where an existing successful business is acquired by another successful business and the acquired business begins to use a name, trademark or other branding indicative of the acquiring business, there should be no automatic assumption that a payment should be made in respect of such use. If there is a reasonable expectation of financial benefit to the acquired company from using the acquiring company’s branding, then the amount of any payment should be informed by the level of that anticipated benefit. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...