On 1 July 2022, the tax authorities in the Netherlands published Decree No. 2022-0000139020 of 14 June 2022 containing local guidance on application of the arm’s length principle. The Decree is based on article 9 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and also contains references to local case laws. In the Decree, particular focus is on areas that have been updated in the most recent releases of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines – Legal ownership, DEMPE functions, Services, HTVI and Valuation Methods, Government policies (COVID-19), Remuneration of Procurement activities, Financial transactions etc. Click here for Unofficial English translation Click here for other translation ...

The Australian Taxation Office has issued new guidance for multinational groups using offshore marketing- and procurment hubs for tax avoidance purposes. The guidance adresses tax schemes where MNEs uses offshore hubs to shift profits and thereby avoid Australian taxes. Offshore hub arrangements are catagorised by the ATO as white, green, blue, yellow, amber, or red – based on the risk assesment for tax purposes of the transfer pricing setup. The new guidance is a result of recent Australian investigations and hearings into tax avoidance schemes used by Multinational Groups. Tax avoidance in Australia Australian Senate Hearings into Tax Avoidance The overall framework for Australian risk assessment for tax purposes of MNE’s offshore marketing- and procurement hubs is shown below: ...

A tax dispute over a potential 11.6 billion rand ($878 million) charge between South Africa -based international chemicals and energy company Sasol and the Revenue Service will play out in South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal within the next 12 months. June 30. 2017 a R1.2-billion tax liability was approved by the Tax Court in a case against Sasol by SARS relating to the company’s international crude oil procurement activities between 2005 and 2012. The Tax Court further reported that the final tax amount along with other tax principles raised by SARS in relation to Sasol Oil’s crude purchases in 2013 and 2014, would result in a further tax exposure of R11.6-billion, thus uplifting the total tax liability to R12.8-billion. Aug. 14. 2017 the supreme court granted Sasol’s application for leave to appeal the tax court ruling. Sasol’s dispute with the tax authority comes after Kumba Iron Ore, Anglo American’s iron ore producer, announced it had settled a tax dispute between its Sishen Iron Ore subsidiary and SARS for 2.5 billion rand ...

A tax assessment based on Japanese CFC rules (anti-tax haven rules) had been applied to a “TH Corp”‘s, subsidiary in Singapore. According to Japanese CFC rules, income arising from a foreign subsidiary located in a state or territory with significantly lower tax rates is deemed to arise as the income of the parent company when the principal business of the subsidiary is holding shares or IP rights. However, the CFC rules do not apply when the subsidiary has substance and it makes economic sense to conduct business in the subsidiary in the low tax jurisdiction. Judgement of the court. According to the court, total revenue, number of employees, and fixed facilities are relevant in this determination. The Court held that the Singapore subsidiary had conducted a broad range of businesses – including finance and logistics – with the economically rational purpose of streamlining its ASEAN operations, and thus set aside the CFC taxation. Excerpt “Satisfaction of the substance and control criteria (a) According to the above-mentioned findings, A1 rents an office in Singapore and uses it for the regional control business. Therefore, it can be said that A1 has fixed facilities in Singapore, the country where its head office is located, which are deemed to be necessary for the conduct of its main business, the regional control business. Therefore, it satisfies the substantive criteria (Article 6-6(4) and (3) of the Act). (b) According to the facts certified above, A1 holds general meetings of shareholders and meetings of the board of directors, executes the duties of officers, and prepares and keeps accounting books in Singapore. Therefore, it can be said that A1 manages, controls and operates its own business in the country where its head office is located, and therefore, the management control standard (Article 66-6 Article 66-6, paragraphs 4 and 3). Conclusion According to the above, A1 satisfies all of the requirements for exemption from application, namely, the business criterion, the country of domicile criterion, the substance criterion and the control criterion. Therefore, the plaintiff is exempted from the application of Article 66-6(1) of the Measures Act in each of the fiscal years in question.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

Gap International Sourcing was engaged in sourcing products from India to other group companies. The activity comprised of assistance in identification of vendors, provision of assistance to vendors in procurement of apparel, inspection and quality control and coordination with vendors to ensure delivery of goods to group companies. The necessary technical and intellectual basis for provision of these services were provided by the group companies. The Indian company used TNMM to benchmark the service fee at full cost plus 15%. The tax administration disregarded the functional profile and characterisation of Gap International Sourcing by assuming that the functional profile was substantially higher than those of limited risk support service providers. The tax administration found that a cost plus form of remuneration did not take into account substantial intangible assets owned by the taxpayer. Intangibles were identified to be human asset intangibles, supply chain intangibles and location savings. Based on above, the tax administration set the arm’s length remuneration at a commission of 5% on the value of the products sourced. The Tribunal held, that for determining the arm’s length price of international transaction, it is importent to take the characterisation of the taxpayer and the relatet party into consideration through a functional analysis. The Tribunal observed the following specifically for Gap International Sourcing: • No significant business risks were assumed. • No capacity to assume business risks. • No human resource intangibles were developed. • No supply chain intangibles were developed. • Location savings could not be attributed to the taxpayer. The Tribunal held that the arm’s-length cost plus mark-up for the taxpayer should be 32% (- as opposed to the cost plus 830% and 660% for the two years under consideration, derived by resorting to a commission based model of 5%). The Tribunal also stated that the arm’s length principle as determined by either the taxpayer or Revenue cannot lead to manifestly absurd or abnormal financial results ...

X BV in the Netherlands was a wholesaler in garden related (gift) articles. Customers are located in the Netherlands and abroad (especially in Western Europe, the United States and Canada). Procurement of the products is mainly done in China. Delivery of the products is made directly by the producer to [X] BV or to its other clients. As compensation for procurement activities performed by the [X Limited] in Hong Kong, X group BV pays a 10% surcharge on the purchase price paid by [X Limited] to its Chinese suppliers. This surcharge is passed on in the cost price of the products. The tax administration held that the compensation [X Limited] receives for its procurement activities is (much) too high. The District Court disagreed and decided in favor of X Group BV. Click here for other translation ...

“Holding B.V.” is a holding company. The actual activity of the [X] group in the Netherlands – a wholesale trade in garden-related (gift) items – takes place in [X] B.V. The latter is included in a fiscal consolidation for corporate tax purposes with “Holding B.V.”. Customers of [X] B.V. are located in both the Netherlands and abroad (particularly in Western Europe, the United States and Canada). The products are purchased in China in particular and supplied direct by the producer to [X] B.V. or to its other customers. The procurement company – X Limited has an office and a showroom in Hong Kong, and employs a staff of five. The core activities of X Limited consist of quality control, logistics, product development, purchasing and sales. As remuneration for its activities, [X] B.V. pays a mark-up of 10% on the purchase price paid by X Limited to its Chinese suppliers. The tax authorities issued an assessment where the remuneration of the procurement company in Hong Kong was instead based on a cost plus method. Judgement of the Court The court rules that the transfer prices are not arm’s length. The ‘comparable uncontrolled price’ method advocated by the plaintiff is not accepted. The court followed the tax authorities in the cost-plus method, in which a cost surcharge of 10% was applied. The Court considers the following. The cup method as advocated by the plaintiff involves a comparison of the price charged for goods or services transferred in a group transaction with the price charged for goods and services transferred in a comparable free market transaction in comparable circumstances. The Court is of the opinion – as stated by the Respondent – that in view of the various functions which [X Limited] performs vis-à-vis the Claimant or third parties, there is no question in this case of a cup. A cup can therefore not serve as a basis for the transfer price so that another method should apply as a basis for determining the transfer prices. According to the defendant, the cost-plus method should be taken as a starting point. According to the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations (1995-1999), the cost-plus method is based on costs incurred by the supplier of the goods or services in a group transaction for goods or services supplied to an associated purchaser. An appropriate cost-plus mark-up is then added to these costs in order to achieve an appropriate profit in view of the functions performed and the market conditions. The court is of the opinion that in view of the OECD Guidelines, the cost-plus method is a correct method for determining transfer prices in the present case. A cost-plus surcharge of 10% as defended by the defendant and further calculated in the statement of defence, has not been contested by the plaintiff and also does not appear unreasonable to the court. In view of all relevant facts and circumstances – considered together and in relation to each other – the Court is therefore of the opinion that the Defendant has made it plausible that the transfer price applied between the Claimant and [X Limited] is not based on business economics. In view of the fact that the cost supplement applied by the plaintiff is considerably higher than a transfer price that should be considered as arm’s length, the defendant has herewith also made it plausible that there is an intention to favour and awareness of this on the part of both parties. The arguments put forward by the claimant against this is of insufficient weight to conclude otherwise. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...