ST Dupont is a French luxury manufacturer of lighters, pens and leather goods. It is majority-owned by the Dutch company D&D International, which is wholly-owned by Broad Gain Investments Ltd, based in Hong Kong. ST Dupont is the sole shareholder of the distribution subsidiaries located abroad, in particular ST Dupont Marketing, based in Hong Kong. Following an audit, an adjustment was issued where the tax administration considered that the prices at which ST Dupont sold its products to ST Dupont Marketing (Hong Kong) were lower than the arm’s length prices. “The investigation revealed that the administration found that ST Dupont was making significant and persistent losses, with an operating loss of between EUR 7,260,086 and EUR 32,408,032 for the financial years from 2003 to 2009. It also noted that its marketing subsidiary in Hong Kong, ST Dupont Marketing, in which it held the entire capital, was making a profit, with results ranging from EUR 920,739 to EUR 3,828,051 for the same years.” Applying a CUP method the tax administration corrected the losses declared by ST Dupont in terms of corporation tax for the financial years ending in 2009, 2010 and 2011. Not satisfied with the adjustment ST Dupont filed an appeal with the Paris administrative Court where parts of the tax assessment in a decision issued in 2019 were set aside by the court (royalty payments and resulting adjustments to loss carry forward) An appeal was then filed with the CAA of Paris, where in April 2022 the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance. Finally an appeal was filed with the Conseil d’État. Judgement of the Conseil d’État The Conseil d’État dismissed the appeal of ST Dupont and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal. Excerpt “ 15. It is clear from the documents in the file submitted to the lower courts that, in order to assess whether the prices at which ST Dupont sold its finished products to its distribution subsidiary ST Dupont Marketing constituted a transfer of profits abroad, it compared them to the prices at which the same products were sold to the independent South Korean company SJ Duko Co and to a network of duty-free sellers in South-East Asia. It considered that this comparison revealed the existence of an advantage granted by ST Dupont to its subsidiary, which it reintegrated into the parent company’s profits. However, in its response to the taxpayer’s comments, this adjustment was reduced by a “reduction” in the arm’s length prices used by the tax authorities, which consisted of aligning the margin on transactions with duty free shops with the margin on sales to SJ Duko, and then, in accordance with the opinion issued by the departmental commission for direct taxes and turnover taxes, by a further reduction of 50% of the amounts reintegrated into the company’s results. 16. In the first place, the company criticised the method used by the tax authorities on the grounds that ST Dupont Marketing and the Korean company SJ Duko Co were not comparable, since the former operated as a wholesaler and retailer while the latter only operated as a wholesaler. In rejecting this criticism on the grounds, firstly, that SJ Duko’s wholesale activity had been supplemented by that of exclusive sales agent and retailer and, secondly, that the applicant had not provided any evidence making it possible to assess the nature and cost of the differences in functions between ST Dupont Marketing and SJ Duko Co, taking into account in particular the assets used and the risks borne, and consequently to assess the existence, if any, of differences such that they would render the comparison irrelevant if they could not be appropriately corrected, the Court did not err in law. Although the company also argued that the differences in the functions performed by ST Dupont and the duty free shops prevented the duty free shops from being considered comparable, this criticism is new in the appeal and is therefore inoperative. 17. Secondly, in order to dismiss the criticism of the administration’s method based on the failure to take account of the difference in the geographical markets in which ST Dupont Marketing and SJ Duko Co operated, respectively, the Court was able, without committing an error of law, by disregarding the rules governing the allocation of the burden of proof or distorting the documents in the file submitted to it, to rely on the fact that ST Dupont’s transfer pricing documentation itself specified that retail prices were set uniformly by continental zone. 18. Thirdly, the Court noted, in a sovereign assessment not vitiated by distortion, on the one hand, that it did not follow either from the tables attached to the rectification proposal, or from the method of determining the selling prices of finished products to the various Asian subsidiaries, that the prices charged by ST Dupont to its customers depended on the quantities sold and, secondly, that the document produced by ST Dupont showing an overall statistical correlation between volume sold and unit price, which did not guarantee that the products compared were homogeneous, did not make it possible to establish this either. In relying on these factors to dismiss the company’s criticism based on the difference in the volume of transactions with ST Dupont Marketing and SJ Duko Co respectively, the Court did not err in law. 19. Fourthly, although the company criticises the grounds of the judgment in which the Court rejected its argument that the alignment of the mark-up applied to sales to duty-free shops with that applied to sales to SJ Duko Co meant that only one term of comparison was used, it is clear from other statements in the judgment, not criticised by the appeal, that the court also based itself on the fact that the tax authorities had, as an alternative, in their response to the taxpayer’s observations, applied a 27% reduction to the prices granted to duty-free shops in order to take account of the fact that these were ...

SA Tropicana Europe Hermes is a French permanent establishment of SA Tropicana Europe, located in Belgium. The French PE carried out the business of bottling fruit juice-based drinks. In 2009, a new distribution contract was concluded with the Swiss company FLTCE, which was accompanied by a restructuring of its business. Before 1 July 2009, Tropicana was engaged in the manufacture of fresh fruit juices in cardboard packs and purchased fresh fruit juices which it pasteurised. As of 1 July 2009, its activity was reduced to that of a contract manufacturer on behalf of FLTCE, which became the owner of the technology and intellectual property rights as well as the stocks. The re-organisation led to a significant reduction in the company’s turnover and profits. Tropicana Europe was subject to two audits, at the end of which the tax authorities notified it of tax reassessments in respect of corporate income tax, withholding tax and business value added contribution (CVAE) for the years 2010 to 2013, together with penalties. It also notified the company of tax adjustments, together with penalties, in respect of the additional contribution to corporation tax for the years 2012 and 2013. According to the tax authorities Tropicana Europe’s new contract was not at arm’s length and constituted an abnormal act of management. Tropicana filed an appeal with the Administrative Court, where the assessment issued by the tax authorities was later set aside. An appeal was then filed by the tax authorities with the Court of Appeal. At issue was whether FLTCE was located in a privileged tax regime and whether there was a link of dependence between Tropicana and FLTCE and thus the basis of the tax assessment. Judgement of the Court of Appeal The court dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities and upheld the decision of the administrative court. Excerpts “As regards the existence of a privileged tax regime : 6. Before the first judges, Tropicana Europe disputed that FLTCE was established in a country with a privileged tax regime within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 238 A of the General Tax Code. The first judges considered that by simply relying on the overall corporate tax rate of 13% in the canton of Bern, in the Swiss Confederation, where FLTCE’s head office is located, and the significant difference between this rate and the corporate tax rate of 33.33% in France, the tax authorities did not establish that FLTCE was established in a country with a privileged tax regime, the tax authorities did not establish that the amount of income tax to which FLTCE is subject is less than half the amount of income tax for which it would have been liable under the conditions of ordinary law in France, if it had been domiciled or established there, and, consequently, that FLTCE would be subject to a preferential tax regime pursuant to the aforementioned provisions of Article 238 A of the French General Tax Code. As this ground of the judgment is not contested on appeal by the Minister, the latter must be considered as renouncing to rely on the establishment of FLTCE in a country whose tax regime is privileged pursuant to the provisions of Article 238 A of the General Tax Code. Consequently, the Minister bears the burden of proof of the existence of a link of dependence between Tropicana Europe and FLTCE.” “As regards the existence of a link of dependence : 7. In order to discharge Tropicana Europe from the taxes it was contesting, the first judges noted that, in order to establish a relationship of dependence between this company and FLTCE, the tax authorities based themselves on the fact that these two companies belonged to the same multinational group, PepsiCo, and deduced that, by relying solely on this factor, the authorities, who bear the burden of proof, did not establish any relationship of dependence between the two companies within the meaning of Article 57 of the General Tax Code. 8. In order to prove the existence of a relationship of dependence between Tropicana Europe and FLTCE, the Minister noted that SA Tropicana Europe Hermes is a permanent establishment of SA Tropicana Europe, located in Belgium, which is 99.99% owned by Seven’Up Nederland BV, which in turn is wholly owned by Pepsico Inc. FLTCE, located in Switzerland in the canton of Bern, is wholly owned by Frito Lay Compagny Gmbh, also located in Switzerland in the same canton. This company has been controlled since 14 December 2011 by PepsiCo Limited located in Gibraltar. While the Minister deduces from all these facts that SA Tropicana Europe and FLTCE are sister companies under the control of the PepsiCo group, he does not provide evidence of legal dependence between SA Tropicana Europe and FLTCE, which are not linked by a capital link between them. Consequently, it is up to the Minister to provide proof of the existence of a de facto dependency link between these two companies. However, the Minister did not provide any other element or indication that would make it possible to detect a de facto dependence between these two companies other than the fact that they belong to the same group. The fact that the two companies belong to the same group does not, in the present case, constitute sufficient proof or evidence of de facto dependence between SA Tropicana Europe and FLTCE in the absence of any other element put forward by the Minister. Consequently, the Minister is not entitled to maintain that, contrary to the assessment made by the first judges, the conditions for the application of Article 57 of the General Tax Code were met in order to base the taxes for which the Administrative Court of Amiens granted discharge.” “As regards the request for substitution of legal basis : … 12. However, this reorganisation was not limited to a simple “change in the invoicing circuit” as the Minister maintains, but led to a significant change in operating conditions since, before 1 July 2009, Tropicana Europe was engaged ...

ST Dupont is a French luxury manufacturer of lighters, pens and leather goods. It is majority-owned by the Dutch company D&D International, which is wholly-owned by Broad Gain Investments Ltd, based in Hong Kong. ST Dupont is the sole shareholder of distribution subsidiaries located abroad, in particular ST Dupont Marketing, based in Hong Kong. Following an audit, an adjustment was issued where the tax administration considered that the prices at which ST Dupont sold its products to ST Dupont Marketing (Hong Kong) were lower than the arm’s length prices. “The investigation revealed that the administration found that ST Dupont was making significant and persistent losses, with an operating loss of between EUR 7,260,086 and EUR 32,408,032 for the financial years from 2003 to 2009. It also noted that its marketing subsidiary in Hong Kong, ST Dupont Marketing, in which it held the entire capital, was making a profit, with results ranging from EUR 920,739 to EUR 3,828,051 for the same years.” Applying a CUP method the tax administration corrected the losses declared by ST Dupont in terms of corporation tax for the financial years ending in 2009, 2010 and 2011. Not satisfied with the adjustment ST Dupont filed an appeal with the Paris administrative Court where parts of the tax assessment in a decision issued in 2019 were set aside by the court (royalty payments and resulting adjustments to loss carry forward) Still not satisfied with the result, an appeal was filed by ST Dupont with the CAA of Paris. Judgement of the CAA The Court of appeal dismissed the appeal of ST Dupont and upheld the decision of the court of first instance. Excerpt “It follows from the above that the administration provides proof of the existence and amount of an advantage granted to ST Dupont Marketing that it was entitled to reintegrate into ST Dupont’s results, pursuant to the provisions of Article 57 of the General Tax Code, before drawing the consequences on the amount of the deficits declared by this company in terms of corporation tax, on the liability of the sums thus distributed to the withholding tax and on the integration in the base of the minimum contribution of professional tax and the contribution on the added value of companies. 29. It follows from all the foregoing that ST Dupont is not entitled to maintain that it was wrongly that, by the contested judgment, the Paris Administrative Court rejected the remainder of its claim. Its claims for the annulment of Article 4 of that judgment, for the discharge of the taxes remaining in dispute and for the restoration of its declared carry-over deficit in its entirety must therefore be rejected.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

SARL SRN Métal’s business is trading in industrial metal and steel products. Following an audit of the company for FY 2011 to 2012 and assessment was issued related to VAT, Transfer Pricing and Withholding Tax. In regards to transfer pricing, the administration considered that (1) the sales of goods made by SRN Métal to B-Lux Steel, established in Luxembourg, were invoiced at a lower price than that charged to the company’s other customers and (2) that commissions paid to Costa Rica – a privileged tax regime – were not deductible as SRN Metal did not provided proof that the expenses corresponded to real operations and that they are not abnormal or exaggerated. The company requested the administrative court of Strasbourg to discharge the assessments. This request was rejected by the court in a judgement issued 29 October 2019. This decision of the administrative court was appealed by the company to the Supreme Administrative Court Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Appeal of SRN Métal was rejected by the Court. Excerpts related to sales of goods to B-Lux “In order to establish a transfer of profits resulting from a reduction in the selling price of goods sold to B-Lux Steel, the department examined twenty sales transactions carried out by the applicant company with French customers at arm’s length from it. The administration also examined, within the framework of administrative assistance to the Luxembourg authorities, fifteen resale transactions by B-Lux Steel of products acquired from SRN Métal. This examination revealed that the margin charged by SARL SRN Métal for sales to B-Lux Steel was significantly lower than that charged to its other customers, without this difference being explained by the conditions of sale, the nature of the products sold or the situation of the customers. By merely alleging, without further clarification, that the results of the administrative assistance would have shown that it charged a higher margin for transactions carried out in Luxembourg, SRN Métal does not usefully challenge the evidence gathered by the department establishing the existence of a transfer of profits to Luxembourg by reducing the selling price of its goods. “It is true that SRN Métal intends to justify the lower prices charged to B-Lux Steel by its commercial interest in winning market share from Luxembourg customers and by the need to make sales to French customers limited by a credit insurance ceiling, through B-Lux Steel. However, it did not provide any evidence to support these allegations. Consequently, the administration was right to subject the profits thus transferred to Luxembourg to corporation tax. “ Excerpts related to commissions paid to Casa Vi.De.Sa.Ro in Costa Rica “The administration reintegrated into the applicant company’s taxable profits for 2011 and 2012 the sums it paid as commission to a company established in Costa Rica. It is not disputed that the company Casa Vi.De.Sa.Ro was not subject in Costa Rica to taxation on the profits it made abroad on account of the commission in question. Consequently, it is for the applicant company to prove that those commissions corresponded to real transactions and that they are not abnormal or exaggerated.” “In order to justify the reality of the business transactions which Casa Vi.De.Sa.Ro carried out on its behalf, the appellant company reiterates its argument that those commissions were intended to enable it to obtain the clientele of Arcelor Mittal Dunkerque. However, the applicant company, which does not even have a contract signed with the disputed company, does not provide any basis for its allegations. Although the applicant company maintains that it deducted exactly the same commissions in respect of other years and that the department admitted them on the occasion of another audit of the accounts, such a circumstance is not in itself sufficient to establish the reality of the services at issue during the period audited. Consequently, the administration was right to reinstate these commissions in its taxable profits.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

The French company SMAP carries out activities in the area of advertising management and organisation of trade fairs. Following an audit of the company for FY 2008 to 2011 and assessment was issued where deduction of costs for certain intra group “services” had been denied, resulting in additional value added tax, corporate income tax surcharges, apprenticeship tax and business value added tax. The company held that the tax administration had disregarded fiscal procedures, and that the reality of the services – and deductibility of the costs – cannot be disregarded on mere presumptions. Decision of the Court The Appeal of SARL SMAP was rejected by the Court. “Firstly, the administration notes that by virtue of a Lebanese legislative decree n° 46 of 24th June 1983, companies governed by Lebanese law … carrying out their essential activities outside the national territory are considered as offshore companies and as such benefit from a privileged tax regime. In particular, Article 4 of this legislative decree exempts these companies from the tax on the annual profits of joint stock companies. As mentioned in point 6, the activities of APCOM, as they are only covered by the 2004 contracts signed with SMAP SARL, concern administrative and financial services and commercial representation activities for companies not domiciled in Lebanon, and are therefore subject to the provisions of the Legislative Decree No. 46 of 24 June 1983. By merely maintaining that the company APCOM paid taxes in Lebanon, without producing any documents in support of its allegations, the applicant did not usefully contest the elements put forward by the administration. The latter must, therefore, be regarded as establishing that APCOM benefits from a privileged tax regime in Lebanon. It was therefore not required to establish the existence of a link of dependence between the two companies.” “…the claimant has not produced any documents to establish the reality of the services that APCOM performs on behalf of SMAP. Finally, the APCOM supplier account opened in the accounts of SMAP SARL functions as a partner’s current account. A transfer of 25,982 euros to SMAP was also entered there under the heading “loan repayment”, without any explanation being given by the applicant. Under these conditions, the administration must be considered as having produced elements likely to establish that the sums paid by SMAP SARL to APCOM constituted pure generosity granted in an interest other than that of the applicant company.” “…in order to establish the link of dependence between the applicant company and SMAP EXPO SL, the administration relies on the circumstance that the two companies shared the same director. Moreover, it is clear from the terms of the two proposed corrections that the administration also noted that the Spanish company, a sister company to SMAP EXPO S.L., had been the applicant company’s director.” “SARL SMAP, which does not have the material and human resources necessary to carry out its activity of organising trade fairs in Spain, relies on those of the applicant company. In these circumstances, the administration must be considered as establishing the link of dependence between the applicant and SMAP EXPO SL.” “As stated in paragraph 7, there is no evidence to establish the reality of the services which would have been provided by SMAP EXPO SL to SMAP SARL. Moreover, the applicant does not contest the transfer of profits to SMAP EXPO SL.” “It follows from what has just been said in the preceding points that the plea alleging that the administration has disregarded the provisions of Article 57 of the General Tax Code must be dismissed.” “It follows from all of the foregoing that SMAP SARL is not entitled to argue that the Montreuil Administrative Court wrongly rejected its claims in the contested judgment”. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

ST Dupont is a French luxury manufacturer of lighters, pens and leather goods. It is majority-owned by the Dutch company, D&D International, which is wholly-owned by Broad Gain Investments Ltd, based in Hong Kong. ST Dupont is the sole shareholder of distribution subsidiaries located abroad, in particular ST Dupont Marketing, based in Hong Kong. Following an audit, an adjustment was issued for FY 2009, 2010 and 2011 where the tax administration considered that the prices at which ST Dupont sold its products to ST Dupont Marketing (Hong Kong) were lower than the arm’s length prices, that royalty rates had not been at arm’s length. Furthermore adjustments had been made to losses carried forward. Not satisfied with the adjustment ST Dupont filed an appeal with the Paris administrative Court. Judgement of the Administrative Court The Court set aside the tax assessment in regards to license payments and resulting adjustments to loss carry forward but upheld in regards of pricing of the products sold to ST Dupont Marketing (Hong Kong). Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

SAS Cooper Capri’s belongs to the American group Cooper Industries. The Group carries out a parts production and sales activity in the context of two branches, a “construction” branch and an “industry” branch which produces, in particular, cable glands Cooper Capri was subject to an audit at the end of which the administration considered that it had indirectly transferred part of its profits to companies belonging to the same group located outside France and, consequently, incorporated the profits thus transferred into the result charged to the accounts for FY 2007 The company asked the Administrative Court to discharge the additional taxes. In November 2014 the request of Cooper Capri was rejected and the assessment of the tax authorities upheld. Cooper Capri then filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal. According to Cooper Capri, the tax administration had not demonstrated the granting of an advantage to related companies located abroad; in fact, if the ratio between the gross margin and sales is lower than that observed for comparable unrelated transactions, this is due, on the one hand, to the fact that the related companies bear distribution costs that normally accrue to them and, on the other hand, to the fact that these companies operate on markets with specific characteristics. Furthermore, according to Cooper Capri the tax administration could not base the disputed taxes on Article 57 of the general tax code since it had not identified with sufficient precision the companies benefiting from this advantage; Finally, the tax administration did not demonstrate that these companies were established in a foreign State or in a territory outside France with a privileged tax regime. Judgement of the Court of Appeal The court dismissed the appeal of Cooper Capri and upheld the decision of the administrative court. Excerpts “4. Considering, on the one hand, that it is common knowledge that SAS Cooper Capri was dependent on the American company Cooper Industries, a company located outside of France; that it is clear from the investigation that it manufactures goods sold on the French market and for export, either through independent distributors or through Cooper Shanghai located in China and Cooper Crouse Hinds located in Germany, Norway, Spain, the United Arab Emirates and South Korea; that all these companies were also dependent on the American company Cooper Industries; that the administration thus established the existence, which was not formally contested, of a link of dependence between the company located in France and these companies located outside France and which belonged to the same group; that the company cannot therefore usefully maintain that the administration could not apply Article 57 of the General Tax Code on the grounds that it had not established the privileged nature of the tax regimes applicable to the companies located abroad; 5. Considering, on the other hand, that it results from the investigation that, to determine the price of the products that it manufactures and that it intends to sell, the company used the method of the production cost increased by a margin; that this method, known as the “cost +”, was not disputed by the administration; that, however, and in the first place, the administration noted during the audit that, with regard to transactions concerning these products and carried out with the companies mentioned in point 4, the ratio between the gross margin and the amount of sales was 25.3% for the financial year ending in 2007, whereas, with regard to transactions concerning the same products carried out with other customers not belonging to the group, this ratio was 38.5%; that secondly, it is not disputed that the setting of prices is the responsibility of the company for all transactions carried out outside the group and of the American parent company for all intra-group transactions; that in this respect the prices are established on the basis of a “cost+” calculated on the basis of a margin of 27% and are revised continuously to take account of the valuation of raw materials; that, given the method used by the company, the finding of a lower margin results from the application of lower selling prices; that the administration was thus able to validly base itself on the margin differences found without having to analyse comparable markets and comparable functions, since it referred only to the company’s own data and did not compare them with the prices charged by other companies; that the company cannot reproach the administration for not having carried out a more detailed analysis and established a transfer of profits by company since, in response to the department’s request for documents specifying the method of determining prices by product and by client company, it confined itself, even though it was the only one to hold the documents, to providing it with overall data for the year under review without supporting documents; that, under these conditions, the differences in rates highlighted by the administration reveal that the prices invoiced by SAS Cooper Capri to companies established outside France and belonging to the same group were significantly lower than those it charged to its other clients;” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...