“Z Pipeline” is a limited partnership which operates a network of pipelines. The network runs through Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. During the year in question, “Z Pipeline”‘s administrative HQ was in Germany. Operational control of the pipeline was exercised by an ‘operations centre’ located in the Netherlands. It was not disputed that the pipeline constituted permanent establishments in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands and that the profits should be allocated between the tree countries. The question was how the profits should be allocated. The tax authorities came to the conclusion that the profit should predominantly be allocated to the German permanent establishments. In accordance with the low functions and risks, only a low profit was to be allocated to the respective permanent establishments in Belgium an the Netherlands. The profit allocation was calculated using a cost-plus 30% due to industry and company-specific features. “Z Pipeline” disagreed with the method applied by the tax authorities and held that it was more appropriate to allocate the profits on the basis of the indirect method. Judgement of the Tax Court The Court decided in favour of “Z Pipeline”. Excerpt “66 VI.) Since the profit differentiation carried out by the defendant [tax authorities] cannot be used as a basis for taxation, the total profit achieved by the plaintiff [Z Pipeline] must be divided into domestic income within the meaning of § 15, para. 1, sentence 1, no. 2 of the Income Tax Act and into income that is tax-exempt according to double taxation agreements. In this respect, the Senate follows the apportionment made by the plaintiff, which results in domestic income from trade in the amount of €…. 67 The apportionment made by the plaintiff, which is essentially based on which part of the company’s assets (pipeline) generated which turnover, is consistent with Article 5, para. 2 DBA-NL 1959 / Article 7 DBA-Belgium. The defendant has not raised any comprehensible objections as to why the apportionment method, which the plaintiff also applied in a comparable form in the assessment periods up to and including 2009 and which withstood several external audits during this time, should be improper as of 2010. Insofar as he refers to the fact that the apportionment is already inappropriate because in Belgium, instead of the Belgian share of profits determined by the plaintiff, only a lump-sum taxation according to turnover has taken place, he fails to realise that the appropriateness of the profit apportionment has nothing to do with the subsequent taxation of the income and that, moreover, the lump-sum taxation according to turnover has taken place with the consent of the Belgian tax authorities. 68 In the opinion of the Senate, the apportionment chosen by the plaintiff also presents itself as a suitable and appropriate method for the apportionment of profits for the year in dispute 2011. In particular, the plaintiff applied an appropriate method for the apportionment of revenue by apportioning the fees from the transport of goods according to the extent to which the pipelines in Germany, Belgium or the Netherlands were actually used for the respective transport and by allocating the remuneration from the management of the foreign pipeline networks to Germany alone. The allocation of costs is also appropriate. Costs directly attributable to an operating facility (such as repair costs for a specific pipeline section) were allocated to the respective state of location, the costs for the Dutch operating centre responsible for monitoring the entire pipeline network were distributed among the three countries according to pipeline kilometres, and the remaining expenses were distributed according to various objective apportionment keys depending on the type of costs (including a country’s percentage share of the total investment costs or of the total revenue). As these apportionment keys had already been applied for many years and no specific objections had been raised by the tax authorities either in previous external audits or in the present legal action, the Senate had no reason to doubt the appropriateness of the apportionment keys. 69 This also applies to the plaintiff’s approach of allocating all administrative costs (personnel costs, etc.) to the German parent company and, in return, recognising fictitious service revenues for the administration of the foreign network share at the parent company (i.e. in the domestic income) determined according to arm’s length principles. Admittedly, neither this approach nor the calculation formula used by the plaintiff is without alternative. However, since no clearly more suitable yardsticks for the apportionment of administrative/personnel costs are apparent, the calculation can be followed. The fact that the apportionment method does not lead to an inappropriate result (from the perspective of the German tax authorities) is already shown by the fact that it results in higher domestic income in the year in dispute. The fictitious domestic service revenues (… €) are higher than the share of administrative costs that would be allocated to the foreign permanent establishments according to the general allocation formula (-… €) and is now taken into account as expenses in Germany. 70 The income from the supplementary balance sheets is also to be allocated to the individual countries – as undertaken by the plaintiff. The defendant’s allocation of the income from the supplementary balance sheets to Germany alone, which is not substantiated in detail, is not comprehensible. The income is directly related to the hidden reserves contained in the individual assets at the time of the acquisition of the shares in the company and is therefore attributable to the foreign permanent establishment, insofar as the respective asset – in particular the pipeline – belonged to its business assets. The plaintiff proved that a) the supplementary balance sheets were formed on the occasion of changes in shareholders in 2002 and 2005, b) both in the calculation of the capital gains for the departing shareholders and in the calculation of the top-up amounts entered in the supplementary balance sheets, a domestic share of 39,81% and a foreign share of 60.19% and c) the apportionments made by it were examined both in the external audit ...

In 2011 a permanent establishment (PE) of a Danish company was established for income tax purposes in Germany in the form of an offshore wind farm. The PE had no employees of its own either in Germany or in Denmark. The technical and commercial management was carried out by two German service and management companies on the basis of management and service contracts. In 2013 the tax authorities issued an assessment related to taxation of assets which, according to allocation principles in the new AOA (significant people functions), would no longer be allocated to Germany. The tax authorities held that allocation of assets to the permanent establishment is determined on the basis of personnel functions exercised in the permanent establishment. If no personnel functions were carried out in the permanent establishment no assets were to be allocated to it. In the tax authorities view, this meant that the wind turbines previously allocated to the domestic permanent establishment as of 1 January 2013 would instead be allocated to the shareholder in Denmark. Due to this (new) allocation of the wind turbine, there was a transfer of assets. Consequently, withdrawal “for non-business purposes” within the meaning of § 4 para. 1 sentence 2 EStG was to be assumed, which was to be recognised at the fair market value of the withdrawn assets. An appeal was filed with the court. Judgement of the BFH The BFH clarified that Section 1 (5) AStG actually requires a reduction in income due to prices that are not at arm’s length in internal business relationships, so-called dealings, and that the allocation regulations of the income correction regulation in Section 1 (5) AStG have no spillover effect on the profit determination regulation of § 4 para. 1 sentence 3 EStG. “Insofar as the tax authorities assume in paragraph 2.2.4.1 of the BMF letter on the application of double taxation agreements to partnerships of 26 September 2014 (BStBl I 2014, 1258) that, with regard to the allocation of assets of a partnership, the principles of § 1 para. 5 AStG are “broadly consistent” with the case law of the BFH on the functional relationship, there are already doubts as to whether, within the framework of such an approach, the allocation of assets would have to be based solely on “personnel functions”. The previous case law of the Senate on this may be based on a function-based approach, but in any case it cannot be inferred that the personnel function alone would be regarded as the decisive allocation parameter” “Even if, with reference to § 1 (5) AStG, the decisive factor were to be the allocation of assets according to the “personnel function”, there are doubts as to whether, in the case in dispute, the wind turbines would have to be allocated to the management permanent establishment in Denmark because personnel functions are only exercised there. This is because it is questionable whether § 1 (5) sentence 3 AStG is to be interpreted to the effect that the relevant personnel function can only be exercised by personnel who are employed by the company as (its own) employees. In any case, the literature doubts that the personnel working in a function for the enterprise must be connected to the enterprise by an employment contract. The wording of the standard does not exclude personnel who work in this function by means of an employee leasing contract or a service contract (Andresen in Wassermeyer/Andresen/Ditz, loc.cit., margin no. 4.70). Thus, in the case in dispute, the personnel of the German service or management companies, who take over the technical and commercial management of the wind turbines on the basis of management and service contracts, would exercise a function in the domestic permanent establishment for the allocation of assets. Consequently, a personnel function would have to be assumed there” “Finally, the Senate has doubts as to whether the principles on the allocation of assets according to the personnel function are applicable at all for so-called permanent establishments without personnel under the validity of Section 1 (5) AStG. The literature points out that the principle of allocating assets according to the personnel function in such permanent establishments would result in the assets that establish the permanent establishment without personnel being allocated to the management permanent establishment……………. It is therefore considered necessary that in the case of permanent establishments without personnel — in deviation from the allocation according to the relevant personnel function — the assets that they establish and that ultimately serve the business function performed there must be attributed to them ” In any case, the tax authorities appear to support the case of a permanent establishment without a significant personnel function with reference to paragraph 75 of the OECD report on the attribution of profits to permanent establishments of 22 July 2010………, according to which, in the case of permanent establishments without a decisive personnel function, the use is to serve as the basis for the allocation of the economic ownership of tangible assets, a “different” allocation of assets is to be assumed ……. which, however, is again not beyond doubt in view of the ambiguous wording of the law (“belonging … to the enterprise”). Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

This case concerns Società Italiana per l’Oleodotto Transalpino Spa (S.I.O.T.) – , which operates the transalpine oil pipeline that crosses Italy, Austria and Germany, with the Austrian subsidiary T.O.O. GmbH and with the German subsidiary D.T.O. GmbH, belonging to the same group of companies. The Italian tax authorities had issued four notices of assessment for FY 2003-2006, related to undeclared revenues, determined in application of the transfer pricing regulations, according to which revenues deriving from transactions with foreign companies must be determined according to the “normal value” of the goods sold or services provided, cf, the arm’s length principle. S.I.O.T. had allocated profit from the activity between the Italien, Austrian and German pipelines using the profit split method – where kilometers of pipeline was the splitting factor. However, the cost of maintenance borne of S.I.O.T. was almost three times higher than that of the other two companies managing the pipeline due to the geography. The tax authorities therefore adjusted the profit allocation by referring to two other significant parameters (in addition to those already considered by the company), i.e. that of the electricity used and that of the maintenance costs borne by the individual companies, except then, in practice, to choose and use only one (that of maintenance costs). Click here for Translation ...