Cameco, together with its subsidiaries, is a large uranium producer and supplier of the services that convert one form of uranium into another form. Cameco had uranium mines in Saskatchewan and uranium refining and processing (conversion) facilities in Ontario. Cameco also had subsidiaries in the United States that owned uranium mines in the United States. The Canadian Revenue Agency found that transactions between Cameco Corp and the Swiss subsidiary constituted a sham arrangement resulting in improper profit shifting. Hence, a tax assessment was issued for FY 2003, 2005, and 2006. Cameco disagreed with the Agency and brought the case to the Canadian Tax Court. In 2018 the Tax Court ruled in favor of Cameco and dismissed the assessment. This decision was appealed by the tax authorities to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Federal Court of Appeal in 2020 dismissed the appeal and also ruled in favor of Cameco A application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal was then brought to the Canadian Supreme Court by the tax authorities. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court. 39368_Cameco_Judgment_on_Leave-Jugement_sur_demande ...

AgraCity Canada had entered into a Services Agreement with a group company, NewAgco Barbados, in connection with the sale by NewAgco Barbados directly to Canadian farmer-users of a glyphosate-based herbicide (“ClearOut”) a generic version of Bayer-Monsanto’s RoundUp. In reassessing the taxable income of AgraCity for 2007 and 2008 the Canada Revenue Agency relied upon the transfer pricing rules in paragraphs 247(2)(a) and (c) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) and re-allocated an amount equal to all of NewAgco Barbados’ profits from these sales activities to the income of AgraCity. According to the Canadian Revenue Agency the value created by the parties to the transactions did not align with what was credited to AgraCity and NewAgco Barbados. Hence, 100% of the net sales profits realized from the ClearOut sales by NewAgco Barbados to FNA members – according to the Revenue Agency – should have been AgraCity’s and none of those profits would have been NewAgco’s had they been dealing at arm’s length. “arm’s length commercial parties would never agree to let NewAgco Barbados have any of the profits if it served no function in the transactions given that it had no assets, employees, resources, or other role or value to contribute to the profit making enterprise or to bring thereto.” The Tax Court found that the purchase, sale, and related transactions with NewAgco Barbados were not a sham, nor was any individual transaction in the series of transactions beginning with the incorporation of NewAgco Barbados for the ClearOut sales activity a sham. The transactions that occurred and were documented were the transactions the parties intended, agreed to, and that the parties reported to others including the Canadian Revenue Agency. Any shortcomings in any paperwork was not intended to deceive the CRA or anyone else. Canada-vs-Agracity-Ltd ...

Cameco, together with its subsidiaries, is a large uranium producer and supplier of the services that convert one form of uranium into another form. Cameco had uranium mines in Saskatchewan and uranium refining and processing (conversion) facilities in Ontario. Cameco also had subsidiaries in the United States that owned uranium mines in the United States. In 1993, the United States and Russian governments executed an agreement that provided the means by which Russia could sell uranium formerly used in its nuclear arsenal. The net result of this agreement was that a certain quantity of uranium would be offered for sale in the market. Cameco initially attempted to secure this source of uranium on its own but later took the lead in negotiating an agreement for the purchase of this uranium by a consortium of companies. When the final agreement was signed in 1999, Cameco designated its Luxembourg subsidiary, Cameco Europe S.A. (CESA), to be the signatory to this agreement. The agreement related to the purchase of the Russian uranium was executed in 1999 among CESA, Compagnie Générale des Matières Nucléaires (COGEMA) (a French state-owned uranium producer), Nukem, Inc. (a privately owned United States trader in uranium), Nukem Nuklear GMBH and AO “Techsnabexport” (Tenex) (a Russian state-owned company). This agreement, which is also referred to as the HEU Feed Agreement, initially provided for the granting of options to purchase the uranium that Tenex would make available for sale. In the years following 1999, there were a number of amendments to this agreement. In particular, the fourth amendment in 2001, in part, obligated the western consortium (CESA, COGEMA and Nukem) to purchase a certain amount of uranium (paragraph 82 of the reasons). On September 9, 1999, CESA entered into an agreement with Urenco Limited (Urenco) (a uranium enricher) and three of its subsidiaries to purchase uranium that Urenco would be receiving from Tenex. Also in 1999, Cameco formed a subsidiary in Switzerland. This company, in 2001, changed its name to Cameco Europe AG (SA, Ltd) (CEL). In 2002, CESA transferred its business (which was described in the transfer agreement as “trading with raw materials, particularly uranium in various forms”) to CEL under the Asset Purchase and Transfer of Liabilities Agreement dated as of October 1, 2002, but executed on October 30, 2002. Therefore, CESA transferred to CEL the rights that CESA had to purchase uranium from Tenex and Urenco. CEL also purchased Cameco’s expected uranium production and its uranium inventory. It would appear that this arrangement did not include any uranium that was sold by Cameco to any customers in Canada (paragraph 40 of the Crown’s memorandum). At certain times, Cameco also purchased uranium from CEL. The profits in issue in this appeal arose as a result of the sale of uranium by CEL that it purchased from three different sources: Tenex, Urenco, and Cameco. When the arrangements with Tenex and Urenco were put in place in 1999, the price of uranium was low. In subsequent years, the price of uranium increased substantially. As a result, the profits realized by CEL from buying and selling uranium were substantial. The Canadian Revenue Agency found that the transactions between Cameco Corp and the Swiss subsidiary constituted a sham arrangement resulting in improper profit shifting.  According to the Canadian Revenue Agency, Cameco would not have entered into any of the transactions that it did with CESA and CEL with any arm’s length person, cf. paragraph 247(2) of the Act. All of the profit earned by CEL should therefore be reallocated to Cameco Corp. Hence, a tax assessment was issued for FY 2003, 2005, and 2006 where $43,468,281, $196,887,068, and $243,075,364 was added to the taxable income of Cameco Canada. Cameco disagreed with the Agency and brought the case to the Canadian Tax Court. In 2018 the Tax Court ruled in favor of Cameco and dismissed the assessment. This decision was then appealed by the tax authorities to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and also ruled in favor of Cameco. “In this appeal, the Crown does not challenge any of the factual findings made by the Tax Court Judge. Rather, the Crown adopts a broader view of paragraphs 247(2)(b) and (d) of the Act and submits that Cameco would not have entered into any of the transactions that it did with CESA and CEL with any arm’s length person. As a result, according to the Crown, all of the profit earned by CEL should be reallocated to Cameco. The Crown, in its memorandum, also indicated that it was raising an alternative argument related to the interpretation of paragraph 247(2)(a) of the Act. … However, subparagraph 247(2)(b)(i) of the Act does not refer to whether the particular taxpayer would not have entered into the particular transaction with the non-resident if that taxpayer had been dealing with the non-resident at arm’s length or what other options may have been available to that particular taxpayer. Rather, this subparagraph raises the issue of whether the transaction or series of transactions would have been entered into between persons dealing with each other at arm’s length (an objective test based on hypothetical persons) — not whether the particular taxpayer would have entered into the transaction or series of transactions in issue with an arm’s length party (a subjective test). A test based on what a hypothetical person (or persons) would have done is not foreign to the law as the standard of care in a negligence case is a “hypothetical ‘reasonable person’” (Queen v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87, at page 121, 1993 CanLII 146). … The Crown’s position with respect to this hypothetical transaction is also contradicted by its position in this case. Essentially, in this case, Cameco became aware of an opportunity to purchase Russian sourced uranium from Tenex and Urenco and chose to complete those arrangements through a foreign subsidiary rather than purchasing this uranium itself and selling it to third-party customers in other countries. This was a foreign-based business opportunity to ...

In 2008, the A Group had reorganized its internal financing function so that the Group’s parent company, A Oyj, had established A Finance NV in Belgium. Thereafter, A Oyj had transferred to intra-group long-term loan receivables of approximately EUR 223,500,000 to A Finance NV. In return, A Oyj had received shares in A Finance NV. The intra-group loan receivables transferred in kind had been unsecured and the interest income on the loan receivables had been transferred to A Finance NV on the same day. A Finance NV had entered the receivables in its balance sheet as assets. In addition, A Oyj and A Finance NV had agreed that target limits would be set for the return on investment achieved by A Finance NV through its operations. A Finance NV has reimbursed A Oyj for income that has exceeded the target limit or, alternatively, invoiced A Oyj for income that falls below the target limit. Based on the functional analysis prepared in the tax audit submitted to A Oyj, the Group Tax Center had considered that A Oyj had in fact performed all significant functions related to intra-group financing, assumed significant risks and used significant funds and that A Finance NV had not actually acted as a group finance company. The Group Tax Center had also considered that A Finance NV had received market-based compensation based on operating costs. In the tax adjustments for the tax years 2011 and 2012 submitted by the Group Tax Center to the detriment of the taxpayer, A Oyj had added as a transfer pricing adjustment: n the difference between the income deemed to be taxable and the income declared by the company and, in addition, imposed tax increases on the company. In the explanatory memorandum to its transfer pricing adjustment decisions, the Group Tax Center had stated that the transactions had not been re-characterized because the characterization or structuring of the transaction or arrangement between the parties had not been adjusted but taxed on the basis of actual transactions between the parties. The Supreme Administrative Court found that the Group Tax Center had ignored the legal actions taken by A Oyj and A Finance NV and in particular the fact that A Finance NV had become a creditor of the Group companies. It had identified the post-investment transactions between A Oyj and A Finance NV and considered that A Oyj had in fact performed all significant intra-group financing activities and that A Finance NV had not in fact acted as a group finance company. Thus, when submitting the tax adjustments to the detriment of the taxpayer, the Group Tax Center had re-characterized the legal transactions between A Oyj and A Finance NV on the basis of section 31 of the Act on Tax Procedure. As the said provision did not entitle the Group Tax Center to re-characterize the legal transactions made by the taxpayer and since it had not been alleged that A Oyj and A Finance NV had reorganized the Group’s financial activities for tax avoidance purposes, the Group Tax Center could not correct A Oyj taxes to the detriment of the taxpayer and does not impose tax increases on the company. Tax years 2011 and 2012. that A Oyj and A Finance NV had undertaken to reorganize the Group’s financial operations for the purpose of tax avoidance, the Group Tax Center could not, on the grounds presented, correct A Oyj’s taxation in 2011 and 2012 to the detriment of the taxpayer or impose tax increases on the company. Tax years 2011 and 2012. that A Oyj and A Finance NV had undertaken to reorganize the Group’s financial operations for the purpose of tax avoidance, the Group Tax Center could not, on the grounds presented, correct A Oyj’s taxation in 2011 and 2012 to the detriment of the taxpayer or impose tax increases on the company. Tax years 2011 and 2012. Click here for translation KHO-2020-35 ...

The tax authorities had recharacterized debt to equity and disallowed deductions for interest payments etc. Decision of the Supreme Court The Court decided in favour of Transportadora de Energía SA and set aside the debt to equity re-characterisation. The court also points to the relevance of transfer pricing studies. The Court noted that the tax authorities had failed to properly review the transfer pricing documentation and benchmarking of the intra-group financing for transfer pricing purposes, and on that basis set aside the assessment. Click here for English Translation Argentina 26 dec 2FALLO CAF 039109_2014_3_RH002 ...

In 2012 Broadcom Corporation acquired all the shares of Broadlight Inc, another US corporation which owned a subsidiary in Israel, for around $200 million. Three months later, the subsidiary in Israel sold its IP to a group company for $59.5m and then an agreement was entered according to which the subsidiary going forward would supply R&D, marketing and support services to the other group companies for a cost plus fee. Based on these facts the Israeli tax authorities issued an assessment equivalent to $168.5m. The tax authorities found that the full value of the company in Israel had been transferred. The tax assessment was brought to court where Broadcom claimed that the tax authorities had re-characterised the transaction and that the onus of proof was on the tax authorities to justify the value of $168.5m. The District Court held that all the values in the Israeli subsidiary had been transferred and ruled in favor of the tax authorities. This ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court. Click here for translation Israel vs BC 2454-19 ...

Canadian mining company, Cameco Corp., sells uranium to a wholly owned trading hub, Cameco Europe Ltd., registred in low tax jurisdiction, Switzerland, which then re-sells the uranium to independent buyers. The parties had entered into a series of controlled transactions related to this activity and as a result the Swiss trading hub, Cameco Europe Ltd., was highly profitable. Following an audit, the Canadian tax authorities issued a transfer pricing tax assessment covering years 2003, 2005, 2006, and later tax assessments for subsequent tax years, adding up to a total of approximately US 1.5 bn in taxes, interest and penalties. The tax authorities first position was that the controlled purchase and sale agreements should be disregarded as a sham as all important functions and decisions were in fact made by Cameco Corp. in Canada. As a second and third position the tax authorities held that the Canadian transfer pricing rules applied to either recharacterise or reprice the transactions. The Tax Court concluded that the transactions were not a sham and had been priced in accordance with the arm’s length principle. The tax authorities have now decided to appeal the decision with the Federal Court of Appeal. See also Canada vs Cameco Corp, Aug 2017, Federal Court, Case No T-856-15 and Cameco’s settelment with the IRS Canada-vs-Cameco-Corp-Oct-2018tcc195 ...

The Finnish tax authorities had made a transfer pricing adjustment to a Finnish marketing and sales subsidiary with continuous losses. The tax authorities had identified a “hidden” services transaction between the Finnish subsidiary and an unidentified foreign group company. The Administrative Court ruled in favor of the tax authorities. The adjustment was not considered by the Court as a recharacterisation. Reference was made to TPG 2010, paragraphs 1.34, 1.42 to 1.49, 1.64, 1.65 and 1.70 to 1.72. Click here for translation Finland vs Loss Corp 29 December 2017 Administrative Court 17-0979-4 ...

A Ab had in 2009 from its majority shareholder B, based in Luxembourg, received a EUR 15 million inter-company loan. A Ab had in 2009 deducted 1,337,500 euros in interest on the loan. The loan had been granted on the basis that the banks financing A’s operations had demanded that the company acquire additional financing, which in the payment scheme would be a subordinated claim in relation to bank loans, and by its nature a so-called IFRS hybrid, which the IFRS financial statements were treated as equity. The loan was guaranteed. The fixed annual interest rate on the loan was 30 percent. The loan could be paid only on demand by A Ab. The Finnish tax authorities argued that the legal form of the inter-company loan agreed between related parties should be disregarded, and the loan reclassified as equity. Interest on the loan would therefore not be deductible for A Ab. According to the Supreme Administrative Court interest on the loan was tax deductible. The Supreme Administrative Court stated that a reclassification of the loan into equity was not possible under the domestic transfer pricing provision alone. Further, the Supreme Administrative Court noted that it had not been demonstrated or even alleged by the tax authorities that the case was to regarded as tax avoidance. The fact that the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (Sections 1.65, 1.66 and 1.68) could in theory have allowed a reclassification of the legal form of the loan into equity was not relevant because a tax treaty cannot broaden the tax base from that determined under the domestic tax provisions. Consequently, the arm’s length principle included in Article 9 of the tax treaty between Finland and Luxembourg only regarded the arm’s length pricing of the instrument, not the classification of the instrument. Click here for other translation Finland-2014-July-Supreme-Administrative-Court-HFD-2014-119 ...

PepsiCo had devised hybrid securities, which were treated as debt in the Netherlands and equity in the United States. Hence, the payments were treated as tax deductible interest expenses in the Netherlands but as tax free dividend income on equity in the US. The IRS held that the payments received from PepsiCo in the Netherlands should also be characterised as taxable interest payments for federal income tax purposes and issued an assessment for FY 1998 to 2002. PepsiCo brought the assessment before the US Tax Court. Based on a 13 factors-analysis the Court concluded that the payments made to PepsiCo were best characterised as nontaxable returns on capital investment and set aside the assessment. Factors considered were: (1) names or labels given to the instruments; (2) presence or absence of a fixed maturity date; (3) source of payments; (4) right to enforce payments; (5) participation in management as a result of the advances; (6) status of the advances in relation to regular corporate creditors; (7) intent of the parties; (8) identity of interest between creditor and stockholder; (9) “thinness” of capital structure in relation to debt; (10) ability of the corporation to obtain credit from outside sources; (11) use to which advances were put; (12) failure of debtor to repay; and (13) risk involved in making advances. “And, perhaps most convincingly, the “independent creditor test” underscores that a commercial bank or third party lender would not have engaged in transactions of comparable risk.” “However, after consideration of all the facts and circumstances, we believe that the advance agreements exhibited more qualitative and quantitative indicia of equity than debt.” “We hold that the advance agreements are more appropriately characterized as equity for Federal income tax purposes.” US vs PepsiCo Sep 2012 US Tax Court Opinion, T-C-Memo 2012-269 ...

The CRA had issued a six assessments for fiscal years 1995-1999 based on the principle purpose of Univar's acquisition of shares of Van Waters & Rogers (Barbadosco) Ltd. being to permit Univar to avoid, reduce or defer the payment of tax that would otherwise be payable under the Act within the meaning of paragraph 95(6), and thus deemed not to have been acquired . "ITA 95(6) Where rights or shares issued, acquired or disposed of to avoid tax – For the purposes of this subdivision (other than section 90), (b) where a person or partnership acquires or disposes of shares of the capital stock of a corporation, either directly or indirectly, and it can reasonably be considered that the principal purpose for the acquisition or disposition of the shares is to permit a person to avoid, reduce or defer the payment of tax or any other amount that would otherwise be payable under this Act, those shares shall be deemed not to have been acquired or disposed of, as the case may be, and where the shares were unissued by the corporation immediately prior to the acquisition, those shares shall be deemed not to have been issued." The Amended Judgement from the Court The appeal from the six reassessments made under Part I of  the Income Tax Act with respect to the following taxation years is allowed and the reassessments are referred back to the Minister  of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment: With respect to the six reassessments, it cannot, under paragraph 95(6)reasonably be considered that the principal purpose for the acquisition of the shares of Barbadosco was to permit the Appellant to avoid, reduce or defer the payment of tax or any other amount that would otherwise be payable under the Act. Canada vs Univar May 9 2005_TCC_723 ...