Seven Seas Technologies under a software license agreement purchased software from a US company – Callidus software – for internal use and for distribution to local customers. Following an audit, the tax authorities found that Seven Seas Technologies had not been paying withholding taxes on payments in respect of the software license agreement with Callidas. An assessment was issued according to which these payments were found to by a “consideration for the use and right to use copyright in the literary work of another person” as per section 2 of the Income Tax Act, thus subject to withholding tax under Section 35 (1)(b) of the Kenyan Income Tax Act. Seven Seas Technologies contested the assessment before the Tax Appeals Tribunal where, in a judgement issued 8 December 2016, the tribunal held that Seven Seas Technologies had acquired rights to copyright in software that is commercially exploited and that the company on that basis should have paid withholding tax. A decision was issued in favor of the tax authorities. Unsatisfied with the decision of the tribunal Seven Seas Technologies Ltd moved the case to the High Court. In the appeal filed in 2017 Seven Seas Technologies Ltd argues that a payment may only be deemed a royalty where it results in the transfer of copyrights which grants rights as set out in Section 26 (1) of Copyright Act 2001. In the case at hand, a transfer of such rights had not taken place under the software license agreement and the payments are therefore not subject to withholding tax. Judgement of the High Court The High Court granted the appeal and decided in favor of Seven Seas Technologies Ltd. The additional tax assessment and the decision of the tribunal – was set aside. During the proceedings the High Court sought additional evidence, including evidence of experts. The expert witness for the Appellant pointed to the decision in the case of Tata Consultancy Services vs State of Andhra Pradesh (277ITR 401) 2004 Pg 99-122 wherein the Indian Supreme Court held that software, when put in a medium, is goods for sale, not copyright. The High Court relied on the Indian Supreme Court decision of 2 March 2021 in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court extracted the finding that “What is licensed by the foreign, non-resident supplier to the distributor and resold to the end-user or directly supplied to the resident end-user is, in fact, the sale of a physical object which contains an embedded computer program and is, therefore, the sale of goods.” Excerpt “The upshot of the above excerpts and the case is that the Appellant in this case paid the license fee did not acquire any partial rights in copyright and thus not subject to royalty as argued by the Respondent. In addition to the above, the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital provides that in such transactions, distributors are paying only for the acquisition of the software copies and not to exploit any right in the software copyrights. Therefore, payments in these types of transactions should be dealt with as business profits and not as royalties. The Tribunal erred in failing to consider that the Appellant is a vendor of copyrighted material and not the user of a copyright and in this regard does not receive any right to exploit the copyright. Disposition It is therefore right to conclude that the Appellant was not subject to pay royalties and in turn not liable to pay Withholding tax to the Respondent with regard to the distribution of the computer software. For these reasons the Appeal is allowed and the decision of the Tribunal set aside.” Kenya vs Seven Seas Dec 2021 ...

P.T. Sanken Indonesia Ltd. – an Indonesian subsidiary of Sanken Electric Co., Ltd. Japan – paid royalties to its Japanese parent for use of IP. The royalty payment was calculated based on external sales and therefore did not include sales of products to group companies. The royalty payments were deducted for tax purposes. Following an audit, the tax authorities issued an assessment where deductions for the royalty payments were denied. According to the authorities the license agreement had not been registrered in Indonesia. Furthermore, the royalty payment was found not to have been determined in accordance with the arm’s length principle. P.T. Sanken issued a complaint over the decision with the Tax Court, where the assessment later was set aside. This decision was then appealed to the Supreme Court by the tax authorities. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities and upheld the decision of the Tax Court. The OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines states that to test the existence of transactions to royalty payments on intangible between related parties, four tests/considerations must be performed: a) Willing to pay test (Par 6.14); b) Economic benefit test (Par 6.15); c) Product life cycle considerations (Par 1.50); d) Identify contractual and arrangement for transfer of IP (Par 6.16-6.19 ); To obtain a comparison that is reliable the level of comparability between the transactions must be determined. The degree of comparability must be measured accurately and precisely because it would be “the core” in the accuracy of the results of the selected method . Although the characteristics of products and the provision in the contract on the sale to related parties and independent was comparable, it was not sufficient to justify the conditions of the transactions are  sufficiently comparable; Based on the OECD Guidelines there are five factors of comparability, namely : ( i ) the terms and conditions in the contract ; (ii) FAR analysis ( function , asset and risk ); (iii) the product or service being transacted ; (iv) business strategy ; and (v) economic situation ; In the application of the arm’s length principle, the OECD TP Guidenline provide guidance as follows: 6.23 “In establishing arm’s length pricing in the case of a sale or license of intangible property, it is possible to use the CUP method where the same owner has transferred or licensed comparable intangible property under comparable circumstances to independent enterprises. The amount of consideration charged in comparable trnsaction between independent enterprises in the same industry can also be guide, where this information is available, and a range of pricing may be Appropriate. “That the provisions mentioned in the above , the Panel of Judges Court believes that the payment of royalties can be financed due to meet the requirements that have been set out in the OECD TP Guidenline and have a relationship with 3M ( Getting , Charge and Maintain ) income and therefore on the correction compa ( now Applicant Review Back) in the case a quo not be maintained because it is not in accordance with the provisions of regulatory legislation which applies as stipulated in Article 29, the following explanation of Article 29 paragraph (2) Paragraph Third Act Provisions General and Tata How Taxation in conjunction with Article 4 paragraph (1), Article 6 paragraph (1) and Article 9 paragraph (1) and Article 18 paragraph (3) of Law – Income Tax Law in conjunction with Article 69 paragraph (1) letter e and Article 78 of the Tax Court Law ; Click here for translation putusan_5291_b_pk_pjk_2020 Dec 2021 ...

AES SUL Distribuidora Gaúcha de Energia S/A is active in footwear industry. It had paid for services to related foreign companies in South Africa, Argentina, Canada, China, South Korea, Spain, France, Holland, Italy, Japan, Norway, Portugal and Turkey. The tax authorities were of the opinion that withholding tax applied to these payments, which they considered royalty, and on that basis an assessment was issued. Not satisfied with this assessment AES filed an appeal, which was allowed by the court of first instance. An appeal was then filed by the tax authorities with the Superior Tribunal. Judgement of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça The court upheld the decision of the court of first instance and dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities. Excerpts “Therefore, the income from the rendering of services paid to residents or domiciled abroad, in the cases dealt with in the records, is not subject to the levy of withholding income tax. The refund of amounts proved to have been unduly paid, therefore, may be requested by the plaintiff, as she would have borne such burden, according to article 166 of the CTN.” “This Superior Court has a firm position according to which IRRF is not levied on remittances abroad arising from contracts for the provision of assistance and technical services, without transfer of technology, when there is a treaty to avoid double taxation, and the term “profit of the foreign company” must be interpreted as operating profit provided for in arts. 6, 11 and 12 of Decree-law 1.598/1977, understood as “the result of the activities, main or accessory, that constitute the object of the legal entity”, including income paid in exchange for services rendered, as demonstrated in the decisions summarized below” “1. The case laws of this Superior Court guide that the provisions of the International Tax Treaties prevail over the legal rules of Domestic Law, due to their specificity, subject to the supremacy of the Magna Carta. Intelligence of art. 98 of the CTN. Precedents: RESP 1.161.467/RS, Reporting Justice CASTRO MEIRA, DJe 1.6.2012; RESP 1.325.709/RJ, Reporting Justice NAPOLEÃO NUNES MAIA FILHO, DJe 20.5.2014. 2. The Brazil-Spain Treaty, object of Decree 76.975/76, provides that the profits of a company of a Contracting State are only taxable in this same State, unless the company performs its activity in the other State by means of a permanent establishment located therein. 3. The term profit of the foreign company must be interpreted not as actual profit, but as operating profit, as the result of the activities, main or accessory, that constitute the object of the legal entity, including, the income paid as consideration for services rendered.” “Article VII of the OECD Model Tax Agreement on Income and Capital used by most Western countries, including Brazil, pursuant to International Tax Treaties entered into with Belgium (Decree 72.542/73), Denmark (Decree 75.106/74) and the Principality of Luxembourg (Decree 85. 051/80), provides that the profits of a company of a contracting state are only taxable in that same state, unless the company carries on its activities in the other contracting state through a permanent establishment situated therein (branch, agency or subsidiary); moreover, the Vienna Convention provides that a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law to justify breach of a treaty (art. 27), in reverence for the basic principle of good faith. 7. In the case of a controlled company, endowed with its own legal personality, distinct from that of the parent company, under the terms of the International Treaties, the profits earned by it are its own profits, and thus taxed only in the Country of its domicile; the system adopted by the national tax legislation of adding them to the profits of the Brazilian parent company ends up violating the International Tax Pacts and infringing the principle of good faith in foreign relations, to which International Law does not grant relief. 8. Bearing in mind that the STF considered the caput of article 74 of MP 2158-35/2001 to be constitutional, the STF adheres to this stand and considers that the profits earned by a subsidiary headquartered in Bermuda, a country with which Brazil has no international agreement along the lines of the OECD, must be considered to have been made available to the parent company on the date of the balance sheet on which they were ascertained. 9. Art. 7, § 1 of IN/SRF 213/02 exceeded the limits imposed by the Federal Law itself (art. 25 of Law 9249/95 and 74 of MP 2158-35/01) which it was intended to regulate; in fact, upon analysis of the legislation supplementing art. 74 of MP 2158-35/01, it may be verified that the prevailing tax regime is that of art. 23 of DL 1. 598/77, which did not change at all with respect to the non-inclusion, in the computation of the taxable income, of the methods resulting from the evaluation of investments abroad by the equity accounting method, that is, of the counterparts of the adjustment of the value of the investment in controlled foreign companies. 10. Therefore, I hereby examine the appeal and partially grant it, partially granting the security order claimed, in order to affirm that the profits earned in the Countries where the controlled companies headquartered in Belgium, Denmark, and Luxembourg are established, are taxed only in their territories, in compliance with article 98 of the CTN and with the Tax Treaties (CTN). The profits ascertained by Brasamerican Limited, domiciled in Bermuda, are subject to article 74, main section of MP 2158-35/2001, and the result of the contra entry to the adjustment of the investment value by the equity accounting method is not part of them.” “Therefore, I hereby examine the appeal and partially grant it, partially granting the security order claimed, in order to affirm that the profits earned in the Countries where the controlled companies headquartered in Belgium, Denmark, and Luxembourg are established, are taxed only in their territories, in compliance with article 98 of the CTN and with the Tax Treaties (CTN). The profits ascertained by Brasamerican ...

P.T. Sanken Indonesia Ltd. – an Indonesian subsidiary of Sanken Electric Co., Ltd. Japan – paid royalties to its Japanese parent for use of IP. The royalty payment was calculated based on external sales and therefore did not include sales of products to group companies. The royalty payments were deducted for tax purposes. Following an audit, the tax authorities issued an assessment where deductions for the royalty payments were denied. According to the authorities the license agreement had not been registrered in Indonesia. Furthermore, the royalty payment was found not to have been determined in accordance with the arm’s length principle. P.T. Sanken issued a complaint over the decision with the Tax Court, where the assessment later was set aside. This decision was then appealed to the Supreme Court by the tax authorities. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities and upheld the decision of the Tax Court. The OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines states that to test the existence of transactions to royalty payments on intangible between related parties, four tests/considerations must be performed: a) Willing to pay test (Par 6.14); b) Economic benefit test (Par 6.15); c) Product life cycle considerations (Par 1.50); d) Identify contractual and arrangement for transfer of IP (Par 6.16-6.19 ); To obtain a comparison that is reliable the level of comparability between the transactions must be determined. The degree of comparability must be measured accurately and precisely because it would be “the core” in the accuracy of the results of the selected method . Although the characteristics of products and the provision in the contract on the sale to related parties and independent was comparable, it was not sufficient to justify the conditions of the transactions are  sufficiently comparable; Based on the OECD Guidelines there are five factors of comparability, namely : ( i ) the terms and conditions in the contract ; (ii) FAR analysis ( function , asset and risk ); (iii) the product or service being transacted ; (iv) business strategy ; and (v) economic situation ; In the application of the arm’s length principle, the OECD TP Guidenline provide guidance as follows: 6.23 “In establishing arm’s length pricing in the case of a sale or license of intangible property, it is possible to use the CUP method where the same owner has transferred or licensed comparable intangible property under comparable circumstances to independent enterprises. The amount of consideration charged in comparable trnsaction between independent enterprises in the same industry can also be guide, where this information is available, and a range of pricing may be Appropriate. “That the provisions mentioned in the above , the Panel of Judges Court believes that the payment of royalties can be financed due to meet the requirements that have been set out in the OECD TP Guidenline and have a relationship with 3M ( Getting , Charge and Maintain ) income and therefore on the correction compa ( now Applicant Review Back) in the case a quo not be maintained because it is not in accordance with the provisions of regulatory legislation which applies as stipulated in Article 29, the following explanation of Article 29 paragraph (2) Paragraph Third Act Provisions General and Tata How Taxation in conjunction with Article 4 paragraph (1), Article 6 paragraph (1) and Article 9 paragraph (1) and Article 18 paragraph (3) of Law – Income Tax Law in conjunction with Article 69 paragraph (1) letter e and Article 78 of the Tax Court Law ; Click here for translation putusan_5291_b_pk_pjk_2020_20210918 ...

PK manufacturing Ltd was a contract manufacturer of cabins for excavators for the Japanese parent and paid royalties for use of IP owned by the parent. Following an audit, the tax authorities issued an assessment where deductions for royalty payments were disallowed due to lack of documentation for ownership to Intellectual Property by the Japanese parent. Furthermore, the tax authorities did not see any economic benefit for the contract manufacturer in paying the royalties, as it had been continuously loss making. The Company disagreed and brought the case to court. The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the tax authorities. Existence and ownership to the Intellectual Property in question had not been sufficiently documented by the Japanese parent company. The Supreme Court dismissed the request for review filed by PK Co. Ltd. Click here for translation putusan_366_b_pk_pjk_2020_20200908cl ...

“AC S.A” is engaged in sale of ventilation, heating and cooling equipment in Panama. AC S.A pays royalties for use of IP owned by the parent company of the AC Group. Following a audit carried out by the Tax Administration in Panama it was concluded that the profits of AC S.A 2.04% was below the arm’s length range determined by application of a TNM-method. After removing non-comparables from the benchmark study provided by the company, the interquartile range had a lower quartile of 6.15% and a median of 8.41%. Hence an assessment of additional taxable income was issued for FY 2014, bringing the profits of AC S.A up to the median (8.41%) of the adjusted benchmark. AC Corp disagreed with the assessment and brought the case before the Administrative Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunal decided in favor of the tax authorities, but made adjustment to the benchmark resulting in a lower quartile of 3.16% and a median of 6.2%. The adjustment issued by the tax authorities was therefore reduced by one third. Click here for English translation Panama AC Company ...

PK manufacturing Ltd was a contract manufacturer of cabins for excavators for the Japanese parent and paid royalties for use of IP owned by the parent. Following an audit, the tax authorities issued an assessment where deductions for royalty payments were disallowed due to lack of documentation for ownership to Intellectual Property by the Japanese parent. Furthermore, the tax authorities did not see any economic benefit for the contract manufacturer in paying the royalties, as it had been continuously loss making. The Company disagreed and brought the case to court. The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the tax authorities. Existence and ownership to the Intellectual Property in question had not been sufficiently documented by the Japanese parent company. Part 1 – Click here for translation Part 2 – Click here for translation Putusan Nomor ...

French Tax Officials raided Disney’s Paris Office. The tax investigation focuses on a fee that Disneyland Paris paid for use of Disney’s intellectual property. The same payment appeared to be associated with services provided by a U.K. unit tasked with managing “Disney activities in Europe, the Middle East and Africa since 2011,”. The problem, in this case, is that the company’s decision to combine the two costs made it impossible for tax officials to confirm whether the pricing had been at arm’s length. Disney lost four lawsuits it filed to challenge the order authorizing French tax officials to raid the Paris offices. The rulings noted tax authorities’ concerns spring from an audit of the Paris-based subsidiary’s tax filings from 2012 to 2015. More than 90% of the French Disney unit’s profit was sent to the U.K. during the first half of the decade. Four years ago, The Walt Disney Co. was under fire after investigative reporters with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists revealed the company sought to benefit from secret tax-saving deals in Luxembourg. This arrangement may have helped Disney reduce its tax payments in the U.S. and Europe, according to the report ...

The tax authorities had disallowed royalty payments of 3% of net sales from Cussons Indonesia to its parent company in the UK, PZ Cussons International Ltd. According to the tax authorities Cussons had been unable to prove that the transaction was at arm’s-length, as well as unable to provide transfer pricing documentation. Cussons claimed that the royalty payments was supported with documents such as royalty agreement, VAT payment, and withholding tax on royalty. Cussons further argued that sales in Indonesia were positively influenced by Cusson’s trademark. Following a tax court decision (Put.53966/2014) in favour of Cussons, the tax authorities brought an appeal to the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities and upheld the decision in favour of Cussons. Click here for translation putusan_907_b_pk_pjk_2017_20210530 ...

In this case “Indonesia Ltd” paid royalties for use of IP owned by the Japanese parent. Following an audit, the tax authorities issued an assessment where the royalty payments were disallowed. Judgement of the Court The Court ruled in favour of the taxpayer. According to the court “Indonesia Ltd” had been able to prove that services had actually been rendered. Click here for translation Putusan Pengadilan Pajak Nomor Put70118-PP-M-IA-15-2016y ...

P.T. Sanken Electric Indonesia Ltd. – an Indonesian subsidiary of Sanken Electric Co., Ltd. Japan – paid royalties to its Japanese parent for use of IP. The royalty payment was calculated based on external sales and therefore did not include sales of products to group companies. The royalty payments were deducted for tax purposes. The tax authorities denied the deduction as the license agreement had not been registrered in Indonesia. Furthermore, the royalty payment was not found to have been determined in accordance with the arm’s length principle. P.T. Sanken Electric Indonesia Ltd appealed the decision of the Tax Court. Judgement of the Tax Court The tax court set aside the assessment and decided in favor of taxpayer. Click here for translation Indonesia PUT 68357-PP-MIA-15-2016 ...

The tax authorities had disallowed royalty payments of 3% of net sales from Cussons Indonesia to its parent company in the UK, PZ Cussons International Ltd. According to the tax authorities Cussons had been unable to prove that the payment was at arm’s-length, as well as unable to provide transfer pricing documentation supporting the pricing. Cussons claimed that the royalty payments was supported with documents such as a royalty agreement, documentation for VAT payments, and withholding tax on royalty. Judgement of the Tax Court The court decided in favour of Cussons and set aside the assessment of the tax authorities Click here for translation putusan_put-53966_pp_m.ivb_15_2014_20210530 (1) ...

In the case of Roche Indonesia the tax authorities had disallowed deductions for royalties paid by the local company to F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Deductions for marketing and and promotions costs paid by the local company had also been disallowed. Judgement of the Tax Court The court decided predominantly in favour of the tax authorities. Roche Indonesia had been unable to prove the value, existence and ultimate owner of intangible assets for which the royalty was paid. In regards to the disallowed deductions of cost related to marketing and and promotions, half of the costs were allowed and the other half disallowed. Click here for translation putusan_put.50616_pp_m.xii_b_15_2014_20210530 ...

In the case of Sharp Semiconductor Indonesia the tax authorities had disallowed deductions for royalties paid by the local company to the Japanese Sharp Corporation. Judgement of the Tax Court The court decided predominantly in favour of the tax authorities. According to the court Sharp Semiconductor Indonesia had not been able to prove the existence of know-how, the existence of training provided, the value of intangible property owned by Sharp Corporation. Moreover, Sharp Semiconductor Indonesia only sells its product to related parties and royalty fees are first relevant once the product is sold to independent parties. Finally Sharp Semiconductor Indonesia was not able to prove the economic benefit it had received from the trademark “Sharp”. Click here for translation putusan_put.49339_pp_m.xii_15_2013_20210530 ...

Proctor & Gamble is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of consumer and industrial products. Proctor & Gamble operates through domestic (US) and foreign subsidiaries and affiliates. Proctor & Gamble owned all the stock of Procter & Gamble A.G. (AG), a Swiss corporation. AG was engaged in marketing Proctor & Gamble’s products, generally in countries in which Proctor & Gamble did not have a marketing subsidiary or affiliate. Proctor & Gamble and AG were parties to a License and Service Agreement, known as a package fee agreement, under which AG paid royalties to Proctor & Gamble for the nonexclusive use by AG and its subsidiaries of Proctor & Gamble’s patents, trademarks, tradenames, knowledge, research and assistance in manufacturing, general administration, finance, buying, marketing and distribution. The royalties payable to Proctor & Gamble were based primarily on the net sales of Proctor & Gamble’s products by AG and its subsidiaries. AG entered into agreements similar to package fee agreements with its subsidiaries. In 1967, Proctor & Gamble made preparations to organize a wholly-owned subsidiary in Spain to manufacture and sell its products in that country. Spanish laws in effect at that time closely regulated foreign investment in Spanish companies. The Spanish Law of Monetary Crimes of November 24, 1938, in effect through 1979, regulated payments from Spanish entities to residents of foreign countries. This law required governmental authorization prior to payment of pesetas to residents of foreign countries. Making such payments without governmental authorization constituted a crime. Decree 16/1959 provided that if investment of foreign capital in a Spanish company was deemed economically preferential to Spain, a Spanish company could transfer in pesetas “the benefits obtained by the foreign capital.” Proctor & Gamble requested authorization to organize Proctor & Gamble Espana S.A. (Espana) and to own, either directly or through a wholly-owned subsidiary, 100 percent of the capital stock of Espana. Proctor & Gamble stated that its 100 percent ownership of Espana would allow Espana immediate access to additional foreign investment, and that Proctor & Gamble was in the best position to bear the risk associated with the mass production of consumer products. Proctor & Gamble also indicated that 100 percent ownership would allow Proctor & Gamble to preserve the confidentiality of its technology. As part of its application, Proctor & Gamble estimated annual requirements for pesetas for the first five years of Espana’s existence. Among the items listed was an annual amount of 7,425,000 pesetas for royalty and technical assistance payments. Under Spanish regulations, prior authorization of the Spanish Council of Ministers was required in order for foreign ownership of the capital of a Spanish corporation to exceed fifty percent. The Spanish government approved Proctor & Gamble’s application for 100 percent ownership in Espana by a letter dated January 27, 1968. The letter expressly stated that Espana could not, however, pay any amounts for royalties or technical assistance. For reasons that are unclear in the record, it was determined that AG, rather than Proctor & Gamble, would hold 100 percent interest in Espana. From 1969 through 1979, Espana filed several applications with the Spanish government seeking to increase its capital from the amount originally approved. The first such application was approved in 1970. The letter granting the increase in capital again stated that Espana “will not pay any amount whatsoever in the concept of fees, patents, royalties and/or technical assistance to the investing firm or to any of its affiliates, unless with the approval of the Administration.” All future applications for capital increases that were approved contained the same prohibition. In 1973, the Spanish government issued Decree 2343/1973, which governed technology agreements between Spanish entities and foreign entities. In order to obtain permission to transfer currency abroad under a technology agreement, the agreement had to be recorded with the Spanish Ministry of Industry. Under the rules for recording technology agreements, when a foreign entity assigning the technology held more than 50 percent of the Spanish entity’s capital, a request for registration of a technology agreement was to be looked upon unfavorably. In cases where foreign investment in the Spanish entity was less than 50 percent, authorization for payment of royalties could be obtained. In 1976, the Spanish government issued Decree 3099/1976, which was designed to promote foreign investment. Foreign investment greater than 50 percent of capital in Spanish entities was generally permitted, but was conditioned upon the Spanish company making no payments to the foreign investor, its subsidiaries or its affiliates for the transfer of technology. Espana did not pay a package fee for royalties or technology to AG during the years at issue. Espana received permission on three occasions to pay Proctor & Gamble for specific engineering services contracts. The Spanish Foreign Investments Office clarified that payment for these contracts was not within the general prohibition against royalties and technical assistance payments. Espana never sought formal relief from the Spanish government from the prohibition against package fees. In 1985, consistent with its membership in the European Economic Community, in Decree 1042/1985 Spain liberalized its system of authorization of foreign investment. In light of these changes, Espana filed an application for removal of the prohibition against royalty payments. This application was approved, as was Espana’s application to pay package fees retroactive to July 1, 1987. Espana first paid a dividend to AG during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1987. The Commissioner determined that a royalty of two percent of Espana’s net sales should be allocated to AG as royalty payments under section 482 for 1978 and 1979 in order to reflect AG’s income. The Commissioner increased AG’s income by $1,232,653 in 1978 and by $1,795,005 in 1979 and issued Proctor & Gamble a notice of deficiency.1 Proctor & Gamble filed a petition in the Tax Court seeking review of the deficiencies. The Tax Court held that the Commissioner’s allocation of income was unwarranted and that there was no deficiency. The court concluded that allocation of income under section 482 was not proper in this case because Spanish ...

Proctor & Gamble is an US corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of consumer and industrial products. Proctor & Gamble operates through domestic and foreign subsidiaries and affiliates. Proctor & Gamble owned all the stock of Procter & Gamble A.G. (AG), a Swiss corporation. AG was engaged in marketing Proctor & Gamble’s products, generally in countries in which Proctor & Gamble did not have a marketing subsidiary or affiliate. Proctor & Gamble and AG were parties to a License and Service Agreement, known as a package fee agreement, under which AG paid royalties to Proctor & Gamble for the nonexclusive use by AG and its subsidiaries of Proctor & Gamble’s patents, trademarks, tradenames, knowledge, research and assistance in manufacturing, general administration, finance, buying, marketing and distribution. The royalties payable to Proctor & Gamble were based primarily on the net sales of Proctor & Gamble’s products by AG and its subsidiaries. AG entered into agreements similar to package fee agreements with its subsidiaries. In 1967, Proctor & Gamble made preparations to organize a wholly-owned subsidiary in Spain to manufacture and sell its products in that country. Spanish laws in effect at that time closely regulated foreign investment in Spanish companies. The Spanish Law of Monetary Crimes of November 24, 1938, in effect through 1979, regulated payments from Spanish entities to residents of foreign countries. This law required governmental authorization prior to payment of pesetas to residents of foreign countries. Making such payments without governmental authorization constituted a crime. Decree 16/1959 provided that if investment of foreign capital in a Spanish company was deemed economically preferential to Spain, a Spanish company could transfer in pesetas “the benefits obtained by the foreign capital.” Proctor & Gamble requested authorization to organize Proctor & Gamble Espana S.A. (Espana) and to own, either directly or through a wholly-owned subsidiary, 100 percent of the capital stock of Espana. Proctor & Gamble stated that its 100 percent ownership of Espana would allow Espana immediate access to additional foreign investment, and that Proctor & Gamble was in the best position to bear the risk associated with the mass production of consumer products. Proctor & Gamble also indicated that 100 percent ownership would allow Proctor & Gamble to preserve the confidentiality of its technology. As part of its application, Proctor & Gamble estimated annual requirements for pesetas for the first five years of Espana’s existence. Among the items listed was an annual amount of 7,425,000 pesetas for royalty and technical assistance payments. Under Spanish regulations, prior authorization of the Spanish Council of Ministers was required in order for foreign ownership of the capital of a Spanish corporation to exceed fifty percent. The Spanish government approved Proctor & Gamble’s application for 100 percent ownership in Espana by a letter dated January 27, 1968. The letter expressly stated that Espana could not, however, pay any amounts for royalties or technical assistance. For reasons that are unclear in the record, it was determined that AG, rather than Proctor & Gamble, would hold 100 percent interest in Espana. From 1969 through 1979, Espana filed several applications with the Spanish government seeking to increase its capital from the amount originally approved. The first such application was approved in 1970. The letter granting the increase in capital again stated that Espana “will not pay any amount whatsoever in the concept of fees, patents, royalties and/or technical assistance to the investing firm or to any of its affiliates, unless with the approval of the Administration.” All future applications for capital increases that were approved contained the same prohibition. In 1973, the Spanish government issued Decree 2343/1973, which governed technology agreements between Spanish entities and foreign entities. In order to obtain permission to transfer currency abroad under a technology agreement, the agreement had to be recorded with the Spanish Ministry of Industry. Under the rules for recording technology agreements, when a foreign entity assigning the technology held more than 50 percent of the Spanish entity’s capital, a request for registration of a technology agreement was to be looked upon unfavorably. In cases where foreign investment in the Spanish entity was less than 50 percent, authorization for payment of royalties could be obtained. In 1976, the Spanish government issued Decree 3099/1976, which was designed to promote foreign investment. Foreign investment greater than 50 percent of capital in Spanish entities was generally permitted, but was conditioned upon the Spanish company making no payments to the foreign investor, its subsidiaries or its affiliates for the transfer of technology. Espana did not pay a package fee for royalties or technology to AG during the years at issue. Espana received permission on three occasions to pay Proctor & Gamble for specific engineering services contracts. The Spanish Foreign Investments Office clarified that payment for these contracts was not within the general prohibition against royalties and technical assistance payments. Espana never sought formal relief from the Spanish government from the prohibition against package fees. In 1985, consistent with its membership in the European Economic Community, in Decree 1042/1985 Spain liberalized its system of authorization of foreign investment. In light of these changes, Espana filed an application for removal of the prohibition against royalty payments. This application was approved, as was Espana’s application to pay package fees retroactive to July 1, 1987. Espana first paid a dividend to AG during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1987. The Commissioner determined that a royalty of two percent of Espana’s net sales should be allocated to AG as royalty payments under section 482 for 1978 and 1979 in order to reflect AG’s income. The Commissioner increased AG’s income by $1,232,653 in 1978 and by $1,795,005 in 1979 and issued Proctor & Gamble a notice of deficiency.1 Proctor & Gamble filed a petition in the Tax Court seeking review of the deficiencies. Decision of the Tax Court The Tax Court held that the Commissioner’s allocation of income was unwarranted and that there was no deficiency. The court concluded that allocation of income under section 482 was ...