SA Exel Industries marketed its products abroad through subsidiaries or independent agents, depending on the territory. In Brazil, India, Argentina, Russia and Portugal it sold its products through subsidiaries under either a buy/sell distributor agreement or a commissionaire agreement. In Iran, Turkey and South Korea it sold through independent agents to whom it paid a commission. The tax authorities considered that the commission paid to the independent agents was a CUP and determined the commission paid to the subsidiaries on that basis. The remuneration of the subsidiaries in excess of the commission (margin) paid to the independent agents was considered to be a transfer of profits abroad. SA Exel Industries appealed against this assessment, arguing that the subsidiaries performed much more important functions than independent agents. It also argued that there were significant market differences, since the subsidiaries operated in highly strategic markets where the major car manufacturers were dominant, while the other markets in which the independent agents operated were anecdotal. The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal and the case was then brought to the Administrative Court of Appeal. Judgement of the Court The Court upheld the decision of the Administrative Court and dismissed SA Exel Industries’ appeal. Excerpt “4. In order to justify the higher amount of remuneration paid to the subsidiaries of the group it heads, compared with the amount paid to independent local intermediaries, SA Exel Industries argues that the geographical markets in which the subsidiaries operated are fundamentally different from those in which the third-party sales agents operated, since they are highly strategic in that they are home to large car manufacturers, whereas the other markets are anecdotal, The subsidiaries responded to major invitations to tender, whereas the local sales agents were involved only in the supply of spare parts and small equipment, and the subsidiaries provided additional marketing, after-sales service, on-site assembly and testing of equipment, and assistance with the collection of debts, as evidenced by the significant human resources at their disposal. 5. Although the turnover achieved in Iran, Turkey and South Korea was generally lower than that achieved through the subsidiaries, it does not appear from the investigation that the characteristics of these markets justify the differences in the remuneration paid to the subsidiaries and to the independent intermediaries, since the turnover achieved by the subsidiaries is not systematically higher than the turnover achieved through independent sales agents. Even supposing that the composition of turnover achieved through independent sales agents is different from that achieved through subsidiaries, the latter including more sales of large equipment through tenders and fewer sales of spare parts and small equipment, which is not apparent from the investigation in the case of certain subsidiaries, it is common ground that the remuneration of independent sales agents does not take account of the nature of the products and equipment sold, since it is invariably set at 20% of turnover, and that the remuneration paid to subsidiaries is, irrespective of the nature of the products, equivalent to the amount of the discount they would have received if they had acted as a buyer-reseller. Finally, it is not apparent from the documents in the files that the services provided by the independent intermediaries are significantly less substantial than the services provided by the subsidiaries in their intermediation activity alone. The mere fact that the subsidiaries have greater material and human resources is not sufficient to presume, in the absence of documents in the file to that effect, that those resources were used in the context of the latter activity. It follows that, contrary to what is maintained, it does not follow from the investigation that the differences in remuneration between subsidiaries and intermediary agents can be explained by the different situation of those suppliers. Although the applicant company argues that the commissions paid to the subsidiaries take account of the margin which they would have made on a purchase/resale of the same product, such an argument is not such as to justify the abovementioned differences in remuneration between the economic agents belonging to the group and those outside it, since they are involved in the same intermediary activity, which is different from the purchase/resale activity. The various doctrines referred to, which are not expressly invoked on the basis of the provisions of Article L. 80 A of the Book of Tax Procedures, do not interpret the tax law differently from the above. 6. It follows that the tax authorities must be regarded as establishing, under the conditions referred to in point 3, the existence of an advantage, and were entitled to reintegrate it into the results of the French company, as the latter did not justify that this advantage would have had at least equivalent counterparts for it.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

The Knights of Columbus, a resident United States corporation, provides life insurance to its Canadian members and relies upon Canadian agents to do so. The issue before the court was whether the Knights of Columbus is liable for tax in Canada on business profits from its insurance business. This hinges on the application of the Convention between the United States of America and Canada with respect to Taxes on Income and Capital (the Canada-U.S. Treaty), specifically a determination of whether the Knights of Columbus has a permanent establishment in Canada as a result of either: (1) carrying on its business through a fixed place of business in Canada (Article V(1) of the Canada-U.S. Treaty). (2) using agents, other than independent agents acting in the ordinary course of their business, who habitually exercise in Canada authority to conclude contracts in the name of the Knights of Columbus (Article V(5) and (7) of the Canada-U.S. Treaty). The Tax Court’s decision The Tax Court ruled in favor of Knights of Columbus. “The issue of a fixed place of business permanent establishment is to be determined by considering the third condition. Was the Knights of Columbus’ business being carried on through the Field Agents’ home offices. This is where I found the experts’ evidence of most assistance. … Once it has been determined that the Field Agents are independent contractors, which has been agreed, that is, that they are in business on their own account, then it is illogical to find that all the organizing and recordkeeping that they conduct at home is anything other than business activities of their own business. The Knights of Columbus do not have any right of disposition over these premises. The argument that payment of an expense commission creates some such right is not well founded. The expense commission is simply an added commission bearing no relation to actual expenses, which are totally borne by the agent. As well, the agents employ no Knights of Columbus’ staff, have no Knights of Columbus’ signage on the property, are not under the control of the Knights of Columbus for what is required at the home office, and simply provide no access to the Knights of Columbus. The agents do not meet applicants at the premises8. The Knights of Columbus make no operational decisions at the Field Agent’s premises. The Knights of Columbus had no officers, directors or employees even visit the agents’ home offices, let alone have any regular access. All risks connected with carrying on business at the home offices are borne by the agents themselves. The agents are not carrying on the Knights of Columbus’ core business from these premises. Their premises cannot therefore be found to be a fixed place of business permanent establishment. … In summary, the Appellant’s appeal is allowed and the assessments are vacated on the basis that the Knights of Columbus did not carry on business in Canada through a permanent establishment either on the basis of the fixed place of business permanent establishment, or a dependent agent permanent establishment. Neither form of permanent establishment has been proven.” ...