Tomas Bodero S.A. added a 4% fee when re-invoicing goods purchased from unrelated manufacturers to its Panamanian subsidiary. The transfer pricing documentation stated that “this fee (4%) is very similar to the fee that brokers in the sector usually charge for brokering imports of goods, so it can be concluded that a market price is charged for the services that the parent company provides to the subsidiary”. Following an audit, the tax authorities issued a tax assessment which, among other adjustments to the taxable income, also adjusted the fee received from the subsidiary. The arm’s length fee for the service provided was set at approximately 26% of the purchase price. Appeals were filed by Tomas Bodero S.A. which ended up in the High Court. Judgement of the Court In regards of procurement fee, the Court ruled in favor of Tomas Bodero A.S. Excerpts “….the method used by the Inspectorate to calculate the transfer prices is sufficiently justified; the internal comparable method is the method which, in general and a priori, provides a greater degree of accuracy and legal certainty given that it is obtained from the prices established by the interested party. However, regardless of the objections raised by the appellant regarding the sampling used by the Inspectorate – limited to a single month of the financial year and including a single Latin American client – and the possible discrepancies as regards the correct identification of the goods, the fact is that the tax authorities have not at any time called into question the specific business/financial intermediation and management model developed between the Spanish parent company and the Panamanian subsidiary. …the Inspectorate [does not] question the fact that the goods are at no time at the physical disposal of the parent company, since the supplier’s dispatch is made directly in Latin America. …we must understand that the (higher) price compared by the Inspectorate, in addition to the commercial margin of the resale itself, includes the cost of intermediation of the independent agent, which is not the case with the (lower) price re-invoiced by the parent company to its filial, which acts as a commercial intermediary with the retailers in Latin America. In fact, in the only invoice compared by the Inspectorate issued directly by the plaintiff to a Latin American customer -FacVen/9758, dated 5 January 2015- the filial TB LATAM is listed as “agent”, whereas, as we said, in the invoices issued by the appellant to its filial the legend “re-invoicing” appears. In other words, we cannot consider logical or reasonable the criterion of the Inspectorate that the price invoiced by the appellant to retailers for resales with agent intermediation is comparable to the price re-invoiced directly by the parent company to its filial in an operation of mere financial intermediation and management -without the intervention of a commercial agent, a task carried out by the filial itself-, all of which leads us to annul the regularisation for this concept. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS, a subsidiary in the Heerema group, paid dividends to a parent company in Luxembourg which in turn paid the dividends to two group companies in Panama. The tax authorities found that the company in Luxembourg was not the beneficial owner of the dividends and thus the dividends were not covered by the tax exemption rules of the EU Parent/Subsidiary Directive or the Double Taxation Convention between Denmark and Luxembourg. On that basis an assessment was issued regarding payment of withholding tax on the dividends. An appeal was filed by Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS with the High Court. Judgement of the Eastern High Court The court dismissed the appeal of Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS and decided in favor of the tax authorities. The parent company in Luxembourg was a so-called “flow-through” company which was not the beneficial owner of the dividend and thus not covered by the tax exemption rules of the Parent/Subsidiary Directive and the Double Taxation Convention between Denmark and Luxembourg. The Danish subsidiary was held liable for the non-payment of dividend tax. Excerpt “The actual distribution On 23 May 2007, Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS distributed USD 325 million, corresponding to DKK 1,799,298,000, to its parent company Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA. The amount was set off by the Danish company against a claim on the Luxembourg parent company arising from a loan of the same amount taken out by Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA in Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS on 22 January 2007 to pay the purchase price for the company. Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA acquired Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS from the two companies, Heavy Transport Group Inc. and Incomara Holdings SA, both resident in Panama and owners of both the Danish and Luxembourg companies. The purchase price was transferred from Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA to the Panamanian companies on 24 January 2007. The loan from Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS to Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA of USD 325 million is referred to in the loan agreement between the parties of 22 January 2007 as an ‘interim dividend’ and states that the amount will be paid as a ‘short term loan’ until such time as a resolution is passed at a future general meeting of Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS to distribute a dividend to the parent company in the same amount. The loan agreement also provides that the loan is to be repaid on demand or immediately after the dividend payment has been declared by offsetting it. It is undisputed that the company Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA was set up as an intermediate holding company between the Panamanian companies and Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS with the aim of ensuring that no Danish withholding tax was triggered by the dividend distribution. Moreover, as regards the activities of Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA, it appears that the company, which was apparently set up in 2004 to provide the financing for Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS and, after 22 January 2007, as the parent company of the company, did not have (and does not have) any employees, the administration of the company being outsourced to a group company in Luxembourg, Heerema Group Service SA. It is undisputed that the parent company had no other activity when it took over the Danish company. Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA’s annual accounts for 2007 show that its assets as at 31 December 2007 consisted of cash of USD 148 551 and financial assets of USD 1 255 355 in its subsidiary Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA was obliged and, moreover, was only able to repay the loan of USD 325 million to Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS by offsetting the dividend received and thus had no real power of disposal over the dividend. Consequently, and since the purpose of the transactions was undoubtedly to avoid Danish taxation of the dividends in connection with the repatriation of the funds to the shareholders in Panama, Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA cannot be regarded as the beneficial owner of the dividends within the meaning of Article 10(2) of the Double Taxation Convention and, as a general rule, the tax should not be reduced in accordance with the rules of the Convention. Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA is also not entitled to the tax exemption under the Parent/Subsidiary Directive, as it must be considered as a flow-through company with no independent economic and commercial justification, and must therefore be characterised as an artificial arrangement whose sole purpose was to obtain the tax exemption under the Directive, see the judgment of 26 February 2019 in Joined Cases C-116/16 and C-117/16. Significance of the possibility of liquidation under Article 59 of the current law on limited liability companies However, Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS claims that there is no abuse of the Parent/Subsidiary Directive, since the two shareholders in Panama, Heavy Transport Group Inc. and Incomara Holdings SA, instead of contributing the company Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA to receive and distribute the ordinary dividends of Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS to the Panamanian companies, could have chosen to liquidate the Danish company pursuant to Article 59 of the current Anartsselskabslov, whereby any liquidation proceeds distributed by the parent company in Luxembourg would have been tax-free for the two shareholders. In its judgment of 26 February 2019, paragraphs 108-110, the CJEU has ruled on the situation where there is a double taxation convention concluded between the source State and the third State in which the beneficial owners of the dividends transferred by the flow-through company are resident for tax purposes. The Court held that such circumstances cannot in themselves preclude the existence of an abuse of rights. The Court stated that if it is duly established on the basis of all the facts that the traders have carried out purely formal or artificial transactions, devoid of any economic or ...

Article 260-8 of the Colombian Tax Statute established which taxpayers were obliged to file Transfer pricing documentation. The rule established two requirements for income taxpayers to be obliged to file DIIPT in the year 2010, the first is to have obtained a gross equity on 31 December of the taxable period of 100.100,000 UVT ($2,455,500,000) or gross income of 61,000 UVT ($1,497,855,000), and the second is to have carried out operations with economic associates or related parties domiciled abroad. In the present case, a Colombian branch of Petroleum Exploration International S.A presented a total gross income of $18,496,716,000 in the income tax return for 2010, and therefore complied with the first requirement. As for the second requirement, it is noted that according to the certificate of existence and legal representation of Colombian branch, it is a branch of the company Petroleum Exploration International S.A. whose principal place of business is Panama. (…) In the accounting inspection report of 2 April 2013, the company’s accountant stated that Ecopetrol paid directly for the oil services provided by the plaintiff to its parent company, which then made the payment to Forum Absolute Return Fund LTD abroad. Consequently, it is evident that there were transactions between the branch and its related company abroad, when the parent company was paid for services provided by the company in Colombia. The aforementioned evidence shows that the company that owned the drill was Petroleum Exploration Internacional S.A. of Panama, which, as recorded in the accounts, was leased by the Colombian branch to provide services in Colombia, but part of the payment went to the company Forum Absolute Return Fund LTD. Hence, there were transactions between the branch and its parent company during the taxable period 2010, so it was obliged to present transfer pricing documentation in the aforementioned period. (…) It is clarified that the acts being challenged do not disregard the principle of the prevalence of substantive law over formal law, as it was not appropriate to declare the drill as an asset of the company, since, as stated by the plaintiff in the appeal, the asset was acquired by its parent company, and therefore the branch could not depreciate an asset that did not belong to it. Moreover, the date of importation of the drill does not affect the fact that transactions had taken place between the branch and its parent company in 2010. (…) According to the above, the branch was obliged to file transfer pricing documentation in 2010 as it exceeded the gross income ceiling, and had carried out operations with its parent company abroad. FORMAL SOURCE: LAW 1437 OF 2011 (CPACA) – ARTICLE 188 / LAW 1564 OF 2012 (GENERAL CODE OF THE PROCESS) – ARTICLE 365 NUMERAL 8 Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

“Shipping Investor Cyprus” was a limited liability company domiciled in Cyprus. In the financial years 2010 and 2011 it received interest income from convertible bonds subject to German withholding tax. “Shipping Investor Cyprus” had no substance itself, but an associated company, also domiciled in Cyprus, had both offices and employees. The dispute was whether “Shipping Investor Cyprus” was entitled to a refund of the German withholding tax and whether this should be determined under the old or the new version of Section 50d(3) of the German Income Tax Act (EStG). The court of first instance concluded that “Shipping Investor Cyprus” claim for a refund was admissible because the old version of the provisions in Section 50d (3) EStG was contrary to European law. The tax authorities appealed this decision. Judgement of the National Tax Court The National Tax Court found that a general reference to the economic activity of another group company in the country of residence of the recipient of the payment was not sufficient to satisfy the substance requirement. According to the court, the lower court had not sufficiently examined whether the substance requirements of Section 50d (3) EStG – in its new version – were met. On this basis, the case was referred back to the lower court for a new hearing. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

A new huge leak of financial records revealed by ICIJ, once again shows widespread use of offshore accounts, shell companies and trusts to hide wealth and/or avoid taxes. The new leak is known as the Pandora Papers and follows other recent leaks – lux leak, panama papers, paradise papers. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists obtained 11.9 million confidential documents from 14 separate legal and financial services firms, which the group said offered “a sweeping look at an industry that helps the world’s ultrawealthy, powerful government officials and other elites conceal trillions of dollars from tax authorities, prosecutors and others.” “The key players in the system include elite institutions – multinational banks, law firms and accounting practices – headquartered in the U.S. and Europe.” The Consortium said the 2.94 terabytes of financial and legal data shows the “offshore money machine operates in every corner of the planet, including the world’s largest democracies,” and involves some of the world’s most well-known banks and legal firms. “The Pandora Papers provide more than twice as much information about the ownership of offshore companies. In all, the new leak of documents reveals the real owners of more than 29,000 offshore companies. The owners come from more than 200 countries and territories, with the largest contingents from Russia, the U.K., Argentina and China.” “Pandora Papers” leaks: Statement by Bob Hamilton, Chair of the Forum on Tax Administration and Chris Jordan, Chair of the FTA’s Joint International Task Force on Shared Intelligence and Collaboration On October 14, a statement was issued by the OECD The Forum on Tax Administration and its Joint International Task Force on Shared Intelligence and Collaboration (JITSIC) are already working collaboratively in response to the recent “Pandora Papers” leaks. This follows the model successfully adopted for the Panama and Paradise Papers leaks. 14/10/2021 – The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) has recently released information relating to its review of data leaks referred to as the Pandora Papers. As a result of the strong partnerships established through its JITSIC Network, the OECD Forum on Tax Administration (FTA) is well positioned to enable a collaborative approach to identifying and addressing aggressive tax avoidance and tax evasion involving multiple jurisdictions once the data becomes available. The FTA is dedicated to tax transparency and tax co-operation through the delivery of its collaborative work programme, and its members have access to a range of tools and platforms to help tackle offshore tax evasion and avoidance, including: The FTA’s JITSIC network, which provides an effective and well-established platform to its 42 members to cooperate directly on individual cases, as well as sharing their experience, resources and expertise. This direct and immediate collaboration proved to be very effective following the Panama and Paradise Papers leaks. JITSIC, like tax administrations more generally, operates under strict rules designed to protect the confidentiality of information and the confidence of taxpayers. As a consequence much of the work of JITSIC is not always visible to the public. The OECD standard on the exchange of information on request, which provides a powerful framework for tax administrations to receive detailed information on taxpayers’ offshore affairs from 163 jurisdictions. The OECD Common Reporting Standard (CRS) under which there is automatic reporting of information between more than 100 jurisdictions on the offshore financial accounts of non-residents, to their jurisdiction of residence. Information on these financial accounts, as well as the requirements envisaged by the transparency and exchange of information on request standard, ensure greater transparency of ownership of companies, trusts, and other similar structures, the importance of which has been illustrated in the Pandora Papers. As has been the case with previous leaks, JITSIC members will continue to work together to pool resources, share information and rapidly develop a more accurate picture of potential wrong doing in order to facilitate further investigations. While the information contained in such leaks can be of value in investigations, the inclusion of information about an individual or entity in a data leak does not automatically mean that there has been non-compliance ...

A new huge leak of financial records revealed by ICIJ, once again shows widespread use of offshore accounts, shell companies and trusts to hide wealth and/or avoid taxes. The new leak is known as the Pandora Papers and follows other recent leaks – lux leak, panama papers, paradise papers. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists obtained 11.9 million confidential documents from 14 separate legal and financial services firms, which the group said offered “a sweeping look at an industry that helps the world’s ultrawealthy, powerful government officials and other elites conceal trillions of dollars from tax authorities, prosecutors and others.” “The key players in the system include elite institutions – multinational banks, law firms and accounting practices – headquartered in the U.S. and Europe.” The Consortium said the 2.94 terabytes of financial and legal data shows the “offshore money machine operates in every corner of the planet, including the world’s largest democracies,” and involves some of the world’s most well-known banks and legal firms. “The Pandora Papers provide more than twice as much information about the ownership of offshore companies. In all, the new leak of documents reveals the real owners of more than 29,000 offshore companies. The owners come from more than 200 countries and territories, with the largest contingents from Russia, the U.K., Argentina and China.” ...

By Javier Garcia-Bernardo, Jan Fichtner, Frank W. Takes, & Eelke M. Heemskerk Multinational corporations use highly complex structures of parents and subsidiaries to organize their operations and ownership. Offshore Financial Centers (OFCs) facilitate these structures through low taxation and lenient regulation, but are increasingly under scrutiny, for instance for enabling tax avoidance. Therefore, the identifcation of OFC jurisdictions has become a politicized and contested issue. We introduce a novel data-driven approach for identifying OFCs based on the global corporate ownership network, in which over 98 million firms (nodes) are connected through 71 million ownership relations. This granular firm-level network data uniquely allows identifying both sink-OFCs and conduit-OFCs. Sink-OFCs attract and retain foreign capital while conduit-OFCs are attractive intermediate destinations in the routing of international investments and enable the transfer of capital without taxation. We identify 24 sink-OFCs. In addition, a small set of countries – the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Singapore and Switzerland – canalize the majority of corporate offshore investment as conduit-OFCs. Each conduit jurisdiction is specialized in a geographical area and there is signifcant specialization based on industrial sectors. Against the idea of OFCs as exotic small islands that cannot be regulated, we show that many sink and conduit-OFCs are highly developed countries. Conduits-and-Sinks-in-the-Global-Corporate-Ownership-Network.pdf ...

Imabari Shipbuilding Co.Ltd., was a Japanese shipbuilding company constructing ships for an affiliate company located in Panama, Panama S.A. The Japanese tax authorities found that prices used in transactions between Imabari Co. and Panama S.A. had not been at arm’s length. A tax assessment was therefore issued where the pricing was based on the comparable uncontrolled pricing method (CUP). Imabari disagreed with the assessement and filed an appeal. At trial, the Takamatsu High Court rejected Imabari’s claim and held that the tax authority’s analysis could be limited to the factors that significantly affected the price, and that not all differences were required to be considered in the calculation of the arm’s length price. A final appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed 14 April 2007. Click here for English translation ...