A situation where Berry ratios can prove useful is for intermediary activities where a taxpayer purchases goods from an associated enterprise and on-sells them to other associated enterprises. In such cases, the resale price method may not be applicable given the absence of uncontrolled sales, and a cost plus method that would provide for a mark-up on the cost of goods sold might not be applicable either where the cost of goods sold consists in controlled purchases. By contrast, operating expenses in the case of an intermediary may be reasonably independent from transfer pricing formulation, unless they are materially affected by controlled transaction costs such as head office charges, rental fees or royalties paid to an associated enterprise, so that, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, a Berry ratio may be an appropriate indicator, subject to the comments above ...

In a case where there is a chain of distribution of goods through an intermediate company, it may be relevant for tax administrations to look not only at the resale price of goods that have been purchased from the intermediate company but also at the price that such company pays to its own supplier and the functions that the intermediate company undertakes. There could well be practical difficulties in obtaining this information and the true function of the intermediate company may be difficult to determine. If it cannot be demonstrated that the intermediate company either assumes an economically significant risk or performs an economic function in the chain that has increased the value of the goods, then any element in the price that is claimed to be attributable to the activities of the intermediate company would reasonably be attributed elsewhere in the MNE group, because independent enterprises would not normally have allowed such a company to share in the profits of the transaction ...

Samsung Electronics Baltic Ltd, is a subsidiary of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd, which was established at the end of 2007. On 1 January 2008, Samsung Electronics Baltic and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd entered into Distribution Agreement, under which Samsung Electronics Baltic was appointed as the distributor in the Baltic States of the products manufactured by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd and its subsidiaries (‘the Distribution Agreement’). In 2008 and 2009, Samsung Electronics Baltic carried out business activities in the territory of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia distributing the goods received from Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd under the Distribution Agreement. Samsung Electronics Baltic also provided warranty services for the goods sold by engaging service providers for that purpose, namely merchants who carried out repairs of the goods (‘Repair Services’). On 2 January 2008, Samsung Electronics Baltic concluded a Warranty Assumption Agreement (‘the Warranty Assumption Agreement’) with its sister company, Samsung Electronics Overseas B.V. (‘Dutch Samsung’), which was the distributor of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd’s products in the Baltic States before the Applicant. Under the agreement, Samsung Electronics Baltic undertook to provide product warranty services for products sold by Dutch Samsung in the Baltic markets in 2005, 2006 and 2007, and Dutch Samsung undertook to pay Samsung Electronics Baltic a lump sum of USD 4 369 550 to fulfil the assumed warranty obligations. In order to fulfil its obligations under this contract, Samsung Electronics Baltic engaged the services of Repair Service Providers. Pursuant to the Distribution Agreement and the Marketing Fund Agreement (‘the Marketing Fund Agreement’) concluded on 1 January 2008 between Samsung Electronics Baltic and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd, Samsung Electronics Baltic also performed marketing functions for the Samsung Group in 2008. In particular, Samsung Electronics Baltic engaged marketing agencies as marketing service providers in accordance with the marketing strategy set out by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. Samsung Electronics Baltic paid the service fees indicated in the invoices issued by these agencies and subsequently invoiced Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd (or other related companies) for the same amount. The State Revenue Service (hereinafter – the Service) audited Samsung Electronics Baltic for value added tax for the period from January 2008 to October 2009 and for corporate income tax for 2008. The administrative procedure before the authority was concluded by the decision of the Revenue Service of 15 February 2011 (hereinafter – the appealed decision), by which the value added tax, the related penalty and late payment fines were calculated for additional payment to the budget, the value added tax to be refunded from the budget and the related penalty were reduced, and the corporate income tax and the related late payment fines and penalties were calculated for additional payment to the budget by the applicant. As regards value added tax, the contested decision states that in 2008 and 2009 Samsung Electronics Baltic deducted as input tax in its value added tax returns the amounts of tax indicated in the invoices issued to Samsung Electronics Baltic by the Repair Service. According to the Authority, Samsung Electronics Baltic was not entitled to do so, since the transactions in question were not aimed at the pursuit of Samsung Electronics Baltic’s economic activity (transactions subject to value added tax). The Revenue Service considers that Samsung Electronics Baltic used the transactions in question to secure its warranty service obligations towards Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd and Samsung Netherlands, whereas, in the Revenue Service’s view, these relationships are not to be regarded as transactions subject to value added tax but as cost compensation transactions which are not subject to value added tax. As regards corporation tax, the contested decision states that Samsung Electronics Baltic, in performing the group’s marketing functions, has acted as an intermediary which undertakes to provide the related companies with the services of subcontractors (marketing agencies). The Authority found that since Samsung Electronics Baltic passed on the services received from the unrelated parties – the marketing agencies – to Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd and other related undertakings without a mark-up, it follows that Samsung Electronics Baltic provided services to the related undertakings below the market price, since an unrelated undertaking would have added a mark-up to such intermediation services in order to make a profit. Consequently, there are grounds for adjusting Samsung Electronics Baltic’s corporation taxable income by the difference between the value of the services reported by Samsung Electronics Baltic and the market value of the services as calculated by the Revenue Service. The method of adding up costs should be used to determine the market value of the services provided. Taking into account the information available in the Amadeus database, it is estimated that the operating cost or profit margin for unrelated undertakings ranges between 1,7 % and 4,05 %. Consequently, the market value of the services provided by Samsung Electronics Baltic to its affiliates was determined by applying the profit margin of 1,7 % to the sum of the value of the services received from the marketing agencies and Samsung Electronics Baltic’s agency costs as determined in the audit. In follows from the judgement that – If the arm’s length price is not applied and the goods or services are sold at a price below the arm’s length price, the taxable income for corporation tax purposes must be revised upwards by that part of the difference. The legislator has accepted that the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations, which summarise the best practices in transfer pricing of OECD Member States, complement the explanation of the market price methods in the legislation and provide guidance to help calculate the market price as accurately as possible. Consequently, the application of market price methodologies should take into account and use, to the extent possible, the guidance provided in those guidelines. Determining the nature of the service provided is a prerequisite for application of the cost markup method. The essence of the cost markup method is the application of a mark-up to the costs incurred by the service provider in providing the service which is ...

A situation where Berry ratios can prove useful is for intermediary activities where a taxpayer purchases goods from an associated enterprise and on-sells them to other associated enterprises. In such cases, the resale price method may not be applicable given the absence of uncontrolled sales, and a cost plus method that would provide for a mark-up on the cost of goods sold might not be applicable either where the cost of goods sold consists in controlled purchases. By contrast, operating expenses in the case of an intermediary may be reasonably independent from transfer pricing formulation, unless they are materially affected by controlled transaction costs such as head office charges, rental fees or royalties paid to an associated enterprise, so that, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, a Berry ratio may be an appropriate indicator, subject to the comments above ...

In a case where there is a chain of distribution of goods through an intermediate company, it may be relevant for tax administrations to look not only at the resale price of goods that have been purchased from the intermediate company but also at the price that such company pays to its own supplier and the functions that the intermediate company undertakes. There could well be practical difficulties in obtaining this information and the true function of the intermediate company may be difficult to determine. If it cannot be demonstrated that the intermediate company either assumes an economically significant risk or performs an economic function in the chain that has increased the value of the goods, then any element in the price that is claimed to be attributable to the activities of the intermediate company would reasonably be attributed elsewhere in the MNE group, because independent enterprises would not normally have allowed such a company to share in the profits of the transaction ...