In 2010, E S.A. transferred the legal ownership of a trademark to subsidiary S and subsequently entered into an agreement with S for the “licensing of the use of the trademarks”. In 2013, the same trademark was transferred back to E. S.A. As a result of these transactions, E. S.A., between 2010 and 2013, recognised the licence fees paid to S as tax costs, and then, as a result of the re-purchase of those trademarks in 2013 – it again made depreciation write-offs on them, recognising them as tax costs. The tax authority found that E S.A. had reported income lower than what would have been reported had the relationships not existed. E S.A. had  overestimated the tax deductible costs by PLN […] for the depreciation of trademarks, which is a consequence of the overestimation for tax purposes of the initial value of the trademarks repurchased from S – 27 December 2013 – by the amount of PLN […]. The function performed by S between 2010 and 2013 was limited to re-registration of the trademarks with the change of legal ownership. In the tax authority’s view, the expenses incurred by E S.A. for the reverse acquisition of the trademarks did not reflect the transactions that unrelated parties would have entered into, as they do not take into account the functions that E S.A. performed in relation to the trademarks. A tax assessment was issued where – for tax purposes – the transaction had instead been treated as a service contract, where S had provided protection and registration services to E S.A. A complaint was filed by E S.A. Judgement of the Court The Court found that there was no legal basis for re-characterisation in Poland for the years in question and that the issue should instead be resolved by applying the Polish anti-avoidance provision. On that basis, the case was referred back for further consideration. Excerpts “In principle, the tax authorities did not present any argumentation showing from which rules of interpretation they came to the conclusion that such an application of the above-mentioned provisions is legally possible and justified in the present case. It should be noted in this regard that Article 11(1) in fine speaks of the determination of income and tax due without – ‘[…] taking into account the conditions arising from the relationship…’, but does not allow for the substitution of one legal act (a licence agreement) for another act (an agreement for the provision of administration services), and deriving from the latter the legal consequences for the determination of the amount of the tax liability. There should be no doubt in this case that, in fact, the authorities made an unjustified reclassification of the legal act performed in the form of the conclusion of a valid licensing contract, when they concluded (referring to the OECD Guidelines – Annex to Chapter VI – Illustrative Examples of Recommendations on Intangible Assets, example 1, point 4) that the transactions carried out by E. and S. in fact constitute, for the purposes of assessing remuneration, a contract for the provision of trademark administration services and the market price in such a case should be determined for administration services. As the applicant rightly argued, such a possibility exists as of 1 January 2019, since Article 11c(4) uses the expression – “[…] without taking into account the controlled transaction, and where justified, determines the income (loss) of the taxpayer from the transaction appropriate to the controlled transaction”. This is what is meant by the so-called recharacterisation, i.e. the reclassification of the transaction, which is what the tax authorities actually did in the present case. At the same time, the Court does not share the view expressed in the jurisprudence of administrative courts, referring to the content of the justification of the draft amending act, according to which, the solutions introduced in 2019 were of a clarifying rather than normative nature (cf. the judgment of the WSA in Rzeszów of 20 October 2022, I SA/Rz 434/22). The applicant rightly argues in this regard that the new regulation is undoubtedly law-making in nature and that the provisions in force until the end of 2018 did not give the tax authorities such powers. It is necessary to agree with the view expressed in the literature that a linguistic interpretation of Article 11(1) of the A.p.d.o.p. and Article 11c of the A.p.d.o.p. proves that Article 11c of that Act is a normative novelty, as the concepts and premises it regulates cannot be derived in any way from the wording of Art. 11(1) u.p.d.o.p. (cf. H. Litwińczuk, Reclassification (non-recognition) of a transaction made between related parties in the light of transfer pricing regulations before and after 1.01.2019, “Tax Review” of 2019, no. 3).” “It follows from the justification of the contested decisions that, in applying Article 11(1) and (4) of the TAX Act to the facts of this case, the tax authorities referred to the OECD Guidelines, inter alia, to the example provided therein (Anex to Chapter VI – Illustrative Examples of Recommendations on Intangible Assets, example 1, point 4), from which, according to the authorities, it follows that the transactions carried out by E. S.A. and S. for the purposes of assessing remuneration constitute, in fact, a contract for the provision of trademark administration services and, in that case, the market price should be determined for such services. In this context, it should be clarified that the OECD Guidelines (as well as other documents of this organisation), in the light of the provisions of Article 87 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, do not constitute a source of universally binding law. Neither can they determine in a binding manner the basic structural elements of a tax, since the constitutional legislator in Article 217 of the Basic Law has subjected this sphere exclusively to statutory regulations. Since these guidelines do not constitute a source of law, they can therefore neither lead to an extension of the powers of the tax authorities nor of the ...

Skechers US Inc. had formed a related party entity, SKII, in 1999 and transferred IP and $18 million in cash to the entity in exchange for 100 percent of the stock. Skechers then licensed the IP back from SKII and claimed a franchise tax deduction for the royalties and also deductions for management fees and interest expenses on the unpaid balance of royalty fees. The Wisconsin tax authorities held that these were sham transaction lacking business purpose and disallowed the deductions. Judgement of the Tax Appeals Commission The Tax Appeals Commission ruled in favor of the tax authorities. Excerpt “(…) The burden of proof is on Petitioner to prove that the Department’s assessment is incorrect by clear and satisfactory evidence. In this case, Petitioner must prove that it had a valid nontax business purpose for entering into the licensing transaction that generated the royalty deductions claimed on its Wisconsin tax returns and that the licensing transaction had economic substance. Both are required. Petitioner did not present persuasive evidence or testimony of either requirement being met. Therefore, the Department’s assessments are upheld. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Petitioner did not have a valid nontax business purpose for the creation of SKII. Petitioner did not have a valid nontax business purpose for entering into the licensing transactions between Skechers and SKII that generated the royalty deductions claimed on its Wisconsin tax returns. Petitioner’s licensing transactions between Skechers and SKII did not have economic substance. (…)” ...

“Fertilizer Licence SA” (“A”) transferred its trademarks to “B” in 2013, previously financed the transfer through a cash contribution, and then, following the transfer, paid royalties to “A” in exchange for the ability to use the assets. According to the tax authorities, a situation where an entity transfers its assets to another entity, finances the transfer and then pays for access to use those assets does not reflect the conditions that unrelated parties would establish. An unrelated party, in order to obtain such licence fees from another unrelated party, would first have to incur the costs of manufacturing or acquiring the trademarks and to finance these costs itself without the involvement of the licensee. An independent entity which has finances the creation or purchase of an intangible asset, should not incur further costs for the use of that asset. Furthermore, in determining the licence fee to “B” for the use of trademarks, “A” relied on formal legal ownership, granting “B” a share in the revenues generated by “A” despite the fact that “B” did not take any part in the creation of these revenues. As a result, almost all the profits of “A” were transferred as royalties to company “B”. According to the authority, such an approach is inconsistent with the arm’s length principle. The remuneration of “B” (the legal owner of trademarks) did not take into account the functions performed by entities in creating the value of trademarks nor the risks and assets involved in the creation. The authority concluded that “B” was not entitled to share in the profit of “A”, because “B” was only the legal owner of internally created trademarks in the group and performed no significant DEMPE functions, had not used significant assets nor borne significant risks. This role of “B” entitled only to reimbursement of the costs incurred for the registration and legal protection of trademarks added a arm’s length margin for this type of services. As a result of the findings, the authority of first instance concluded that “A” had overstated tax deductible costs in connection with the disclosure of trademark licence fees as costs. “A” had reported income lower than it would have expected if the above-mentioned relationships had not existed. In the opinion of the authority of the second instance, an independent entity would not have entered, on the terms and conditions set by the company and its affiliates, into transactions leading to the divestment of ownership of valuable assets necessary for its operations, additionally financing their acquisition by another company, taking up shares in return with a nominal value significantly lower than the value of the lost assets (subsequently not receiving any dividends therefrom), and additionally being forced to incur additional costs as a result of the need to pay licence fees for the use of the trademarks held earlier. An appeal was filed by “A”. Judgement of the Court Excerpts “What is important in the case, however, is the conclusion of the authorities that in fact the legal relationship justifying the incurrence of expenses recognised as tax deductible costs is a contract for the provision of services consisting only in the administration of trademarks. The Court notes, however, that this conclusion is in conflict with the position of the authorities, which did not question the validity of the legal transactions resulting in the transfer of the rights to the trade marks to company ‘B’ and thus to another entity. As the applicant rightly submits, it cannot be disregarded in this case that the applicant was not the owner of the trade marks but acquired the right to use them on the basis of a licence agreement, for which it should pay remuneration to company ‘B’ (page […] of the application). In principle, the authorities did not present any arguments showing which interpretation rules they applied to reach the conclusion that this manner of applying the abovementioned provisions is legally possible and justified in the present case. It should be pointed out here that Article 11(1) in fine speaks of the determination of income and tax due without – ‘[…] taking into account the conditions resulting from the link …’, but does not permit the substitution of one legal transaction (a licence agreement) for another (an agreement for the provision of administration services) and the derivation of legal effects from the latter in terms of determining the amount of the tax liability. As the applicant rightly argued, such a possibility exists from 1 January 2019, since Article 11c(4) uses the expression- “[…] without taking into account the controlled transaction, and where it is justified, it determines the income (loss) of the taxpayer from the transaction relevant to the controlled transaction”. This is the so-called recharacterisation, i.e. reclassification of transactions, which was actually done by the tax authorities in this case. The company’s claims that the transfer of the trade mark into a separate entity was motivated by a desire to increase the company’s recognition and creditworthiness, which was a normal practice for business entities at the time, are unconvincing. On that point, it should be noted that, operating under the GKO with the same name, the applicant’s recognition and the name under which it operated were already sufficiently well established. As regards the increase in the creditworthiness or market power of the users of the trade mark, the applicant’s contentions on this point too are empty. Moreover, even if it were to be accepted, at least in the context of the activities of ‘A’, that the creditworthiness of ‘A’ had been increased, the advantage which the applicant derives from such an operation would appear to be of little significance. In fact, it obtained this benefit to a significant extent from the formation of relations with “A”, as a result of which the value of its income taxable income, and thus its tax liability in 2015, was significantly reduced. The benefits, mainly tax ones, are also indirectly pointed out by the applicant herself, indicating, inter alia, that there were no grounds ...

On 30 November 2012, X sold its trademarks to subsidiary C which in turn sold the trademarks to subsidiary D. X and D then entered into a trademark license agreement according to which X would pay license fees to D. These license fees were deducted by X in its 2013 tax return. The tax authorities claimed that X had understated its taxabel income as the license fees paid by X to D for the use of trademarks were not related to obtaining or securing a source of revenue. The decision stated that in the light of the principles of logic and experience, the actions taken by the taxpayer made no sense and were not aimed at achieving the revenue in question, but instead at generating costs artificially – only for tax purposes. An appeal was filed by X. Judgement of the Administrative Court The court set aside the assessment of the tax authorities and decided in favor of X. According to the court taxpayers are not obliged to conduct their business in such a way as to pay the highest possible taxes, and gaining benefits from so-called tax optimization not prohibited by law, was allowed in 2013. The Polish anti-avoidance clause has only been in force since 15 July 2016. Furthermore, although it may have been possible to set aside legal effects of the transactions under the previous provision in Article 24b § 1 of the C.C.P., the Constitutional Tribunal in its verdict of 11 May 2004, declared this provision to be inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. Excerpts “In the Court’s view, the authorities’ findings fail to comply with the provisions applied in the case, including in particular Article 15 of the CIT Act. The legal transactions described in the appealed decision indeed constitute an optimisation mechanism. However, the realised transaction scheme is not potentially devoid of economic as well as tax rationales. The actions performed were undoubtedly also undertaken in order to achieve the intended tax result, i.e. optimisation of taxation. It should be strongly emphasised that none of the actions taken were ostensible. All of the applicant’s actions were as real as possible. Noticing the obvious reality of the above transactions, the tax authorities did not even attempt to apply the institution regulated in Article 199a of the CIT Act. The omission of legal effects of the transactions performed would probably have been possible in the former legal order, under Article 24b § 1 of the C.C.P., but this provision is no longer in force. The Constitutional Tribunal in its verdict of 11 May 2004, ref. no. K 4/03 (Journal of Laws of 2004, no. 122, item 1288) declared this provision to be inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. On the other hand, the anti-avoidance clause introduced by the Act of 13 May 2016 amending the Tax Ordinance Act and certain other acts (Journal of Laws 2016, item 846) has been in force only since 15 July 2016. Pursuant to the amended Article 119a § 1 o.p. – an act performed primarily for the purpose of obtaining a tax benefit, contradictory in given circumstances to the object and purpose of the provision of the tax act, does not result in obtaining a tax benefit if the manner of action was artificial (tax avoidance). Issues related to the application of the provisions of this clause in time are regulated by Article 7 of the Amending Act, according to which the provisions of Articles 119a-119f of the Act amended in Article 1 apply to the tax advantage obtained after the date of entry into force of this Act. Thus, the anti-avoidance clause applies to tax benefits obtained after the date of entry into force of the amending law, i.e. from 15 July 2016, which, moreover, was not in dispute in the present case. Considering the above, it should be pointed out that the tax authorities in the case at hand had no authority to use such argumentation as if the anti-avoidance clause applied. In the legal state in force in 2013. (applicable in the present case) the general anti-avoidance clause was not in force. This state of affairs amounts to a prohibition on the tax authorities disregarding the tax consequences of legal transactions carried out primarily for the purpose of obtaining a tax advantage.” Click here for English translation. Click here for other translation ...

Where the business restructuring provides for a transfer of an intangible followed by a new arrangement whereby the transferor will continue to use the intangible transferred, the entirety of the commercial arrangement between the parties should be examined in order to accurately delineate the transaction. If an independent party were to transfer an asset that it intends to continue exploiting, it would be prudent for it to negotiate the conditions of such a future use (e.g. in a license agreement) concomitantly with the conditions of the transfer. In effect, there will generally be a relationship between the determination of an arm’s length compensation for the transfer, the determination of an arm’s length compensation for the post-restructuring transactions in relation to the transferred intangible, such as future licence fees that may be payable by the transferor to be able to continue using the asset, and the expected future profitability of the transferor from its future use of the asset. For instance, in an arrangement whereby a patent is transferred for a price of 100 in Year N and a licence agreement is concomitantly concluded according to which the transferor will continue to use the patent transferred in exchange for a royalty of 100 per year over a 10-year period, it is likely that at least one of the two prices is not arm’s length or that the arrangement should be delineated as something other than a sale and concomitant license back. In some circumstances, the accurate delineation of the transaction might conclude that the arrangements reflect the provision of financing, as illustrated in Example 16 of Annex I to Chapter VI ...

Also in the case where a local operation disposes of the legal ownership of its intangibles to a foreign associated enterprise and continues to use the intangibles further to the disposal, but does so in a different legal capacity (e.g. as a licensee), the conditions of the transfer should be assessed from both the transferor’s and the transferee’s perspectives. The determination of an arm’s length remuneration for the subsequent ownership, control and exploitation of the transferred intangible should take account of the extent of the functions performed, assets used and risks assumed by the parties in relation to the intangible transferred, and in particular analysing control of risks and control of functions performed relating to the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection, or exploitation of the intangibles ...

The business activity of A S.A. was wholesale of pharmaceutical products to external pharmacies, hospitals, wholesalers (including: to affiliated wholesalers). The tax authority had noted that the company’s name had been changed in FY 2013, and a loss in the amount of PLN […] had been reported in the company’s tax return. An audit revealed that the Company had transferred significant assets (real estate) to a related entity on non-arm’s length terms. The same real estate was then going forward made available to the company on a fee basis under lease and tenancy agreements. The tax authority issued an assessment where a “restructuring fee” in the amount of PLN […] was added to the taxable income, reflecting the amount which would have been achieved if the transaction had been agreed between independent parties. According to the company the tax authority was not entitled at all to examine the compliance of the terms of these transactions with the terms that would have been agreed between hypothetical independent entities, as the transactions in question were in fact concluded precisely between independent entities. (SKA companies were not CIT taxpayers in 2012, so they did not meet the definition of a “domestic entity” referred to in the aforementioned provision, and therefore a transaction between “related entities” cannot be said to have taken place). Moreover, the institution of “re-characterisation” of a controlled transaction into a proper transaction (according to the authority),could only be applied to transactions taking place after 1 January 2019, pursuant to Article 11e, Section 4 of the A.l.t.p. introduced (from that date). Judgement of the Court The Court decided predominantly in favor of A S.A. and remanded the case back to the tax authorities. Excerpts “The applicant in the course of the case referred to the judgment of the WSA in Warsaw of 18 December 2017, III SA/Wa 3661/16 (approved by the NSA in its judgment of 26 November 2020, II FSK 1919/18). The individual interpretation analysed there by the Court assessed a transaction (from 2012) concluded between a limited liability company and a general partnership. According to the WSA in Warsaw, the provisions of Article 11(4) in conjunction with Article 11(1) of the A.l.t.d.o.p. in the wording in force until 31 December 2014 may only be applied to transactions concluded between related parties – ‘domestic entities’ within the meaning of Article 11 of the A.l.t.d.o.p., and the tax authorities may only assess the income of related parties. The wording of Art. 11 of the A.l.t.p. indicates that it is intended to allow the tax authorities to estimate the income of related parties, if these parties, in transactions concluded between themselves, establish or impose terms and conditions that differ from those that would be established between independent parties, leading to an understatement of income. However, there are no grounds for this provision to be applied to transactions concluded by unrelated entities (a limited liability company and a general partnership) solely for the reason that tax on revenue from participation in a partnership is paid by its partners who are also members of the applicant’s management board. Indeed, it was only the provisions introduced by the Act of 29 August 2014 amending the Corporate Income Tax Act, the Personal Income Tax Act and certain other acts, which entered into force on 1 January 2015, that defined an “affiliated entity” as a natural person, a legal person or an organisational unit without legal personality that meets the conditions set out in the Act. If a contrary position were to be adopted Contrary to the authority’s assertions, these rulings do not concern a different factual situation. Although the audited interpretation concerned the necessity to prepare documentation pursuant to Art. 9a of the A.l.t.c., the applicant also directly inquired about classifying the applicant as an entity related to the general partnership. The courts of both instances were firmly in favour of the absence of such a link (dependence) between a capital company and a partnership, in terms of entering into mutual transactions, within the meaning of Article 11 of the A.l.t.p. in the wording in force until 31 December 2014. Thus, as shown above, the application of Article 11 of the A.l.t.d.o.p. in the present case was un-authorised, which makes it timely to consider the application in the analysed factual state of the general principles arising from Article 14 of the A.l.t.d.o.p. and Chapter 3 of this Act (tax deductible costs), which the authorities, for obvious reasons, have not undertaken so far.” “When reconsidering the case, the authority, taking into account the comments presented above, will issue an appropriate decision, containing in the justification of the decision all the elements referred to in Article 210 § 1 of the Polish Civil Code, including those arising from the cited resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court.” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

Brewery S.A. had transferred its trademarks to a subsidiary in Cyprus and in subsequent years paid royalties/licences for the use of the trademarks. The tax authorities had disregarded deductions of the royalty/licence payments for tax purposes, and the resulting assessment of additional taxable income was later upheld by the District Administrative Court. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court In its judgment, the court stated that it is beyond the scope of the legal possibilities of tax authorities to assess legal actions and to derive – contrary to their content – negative tax consequences for the taxpayer, if such authorisation does not directly result from a tax provision. The court referred to the position contained in the NSA’s judgment of 16 December 2005, in the light of which, the tax authorities have no grounds under tax law for questioning effectively concluded agreements, even if their purpose is to reduce the tax burden. Seeking to pay the lowest possible taxes is not prohibited by law; it is, as it were, a natural right of every taxpayer. It is up to the tax authorities and then the administrative court to assess how effectively (in accordance with the law) these aspirations are realised by a particular entity . In conclusion, the NSA stated that in the light of the above remarks and the factual circumstances of that case, it is reasonable to conclude that, from the perspective of the content of Article 15(1) of the TAX Act, only the assessment of the transaction between the appellant company and the Cypriot company, connected with determining whether the expenditure incurred on account of the concluded sub-license agreement fulfils the prerequisites resulting from that provision, and in particular whether there is a causal link between the incurred expenditure and the obtained (objectively obtainable) revenue or the preservation or protection of a source of revenue, is of significance. The court gave a positive answer to this question. Since the transaction of selling copyright to trademarks was legally effective, it means that the ownership of these rights was transferred to another entity, even if it is a company controlled by a domestic company. Therefore, if the exclusive holder of the rights to use certain property rights is another entity than the applicant company, and in order to maintain the current domestic production, it was necessary to use the right to these trademarks, even in the form of a sub-licence (the acquisition of which was also not questioned) and production and sale of goods with these trademarks was carried out, it is difficult not to see the connection of the incurred expense with the source of revenue, which is economic activity, and the fact that the expense was incurred in order to obtain revenue. The Court stated that the tax authorities did not make use in that case of the possibility provided in the legal state of 2011 by the provision of Article 11 of the tax act. This regulation, concerning the possibility of correcting the prices applied between related parties, in fact introduced an exception to the principle of determining income taking into account the prices applied between counterparties. Its purpose was and is to prevent the erosion of the tax base through the harmful transfer of profits between related parties. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

“Brewery S.A.” had transferred its trademarks to a subsidiary in Cyprus and in subsequent years paid royalties/licences for the use of the trademarks. The tax authorities disregarded the deductions of the royalty/licence payments, and issued an assessment of additional taxable income. An appeal was filed by “Brewery S.A.” Judgement of the District Administrative Court The court dismissed the appeal of “Brewery S.A.” and upheld the assessment issued by the tax authorities. “It should be emphasised that the tax authorities have not questioned the already well-established view that sub-licence fees are, in principle, deductible costs. They did not question either their incurrence by the company or their amount. However, in the specific circumstances, they pointed out that these fees were not purposeful and have no connection to revenue. On the other hand, if, in a specific case, an analysis of the entity’s conduct in the light of the principles of logic and life experience leads to the conclusion of an obvious and complete lack of sense of the actions taken, aiming, in principle, not at the desire to actually achieve a given revenue, but to artificially, solely for tax purposes, generate costs, one may speak of the lack of a cause and effect relationship referred to in Article 15(1) of the CIT Act. This is because then the taxpayer’s purpose is different – instead of generating revenue, he or she seeks only to avoid paying tax” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

Where the business restructuring provides for a transfer of an intangible followed by a new arrangement whereby the transferor will continue to use the intangible transferred, the entirety of the commercial arrangement between the parties should be examined in order to accurately delineate the transaction. If an independent party were to transfer an asset that it intends to continue exploiting, it would be prudent for it to negotiate the conditions of such a future use (e.g. in a license agreement) concomitantly with the conditions of the transfer. In effect, there will generally be a relationship between the determination of an arm’s length compensation for the transfer, the determination of an arm’s length compensation for the post-restructuring transactions in relation to the transferred intangible, such as future licence fees that may be payable by the transferor to be able to continue using the asset, and the expected future profitability of the transferor from its future use of the asset. For instance, in an arrangement whereby a patent is transferred for a price of 100 in Year N and a licence agreement is concomitantly concluded according to which the transferor will continue to use the patent transferred in exchange for a royalty of 100 per year over a 10-year period, it is likely that at least one of the two prices is not arm’s length or that the arrangement should be delineated as something other than a sale and concomitant license back. In some circumstances, the accurate delineation of the transaction might conclude that the arrangements reflect the provision of financing, as illustrated in Example 16 of the Annex to Chapter VI ...

Also in the case where a local operation disposes of the legal ownership of its intangibles to a foreign associated enterprise and continues to use the intangibles further to the disposal, but does so in a different legal capacity (e.g. as a licensee), the conditions of the transfer should be assessed from both the transferor’s and the transferee’s perspectives. The determination of an arm’s length remuneration for the subsequent ownership, control and exploitation of the transferred intangible should take account of the extent of the functions performed, assets used and risks assumed by the parties in relation to the intangible transferred, and in particular analysing control of risks and control of functions performed relating to the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection, or exploitation of the intangibles ...

The case was about a sale and lease back arrangement characterizised as a loan by the US tax authorities referring to “substance over form”. The Court agreed with the tax authorities. “We have held that all of the test transactions failed the substance over form inquiry because petitioner did not acquire the benefits and burdens of ownership in the assets involved in the test transactions. We have also concluded that the test transactions are more similar to loans made by petitioner to CPS and MEAG because petitioner’s return on its investment was predetermined at the time petitioner entered into the test transactions. Accordingly, in 1999 petitioner exchanged the Powerton and Collins power plants for an interest in financial instruments. Such an exchange fails to meet the “like kind” requirement outlined in the Code and the regulations. Thus, petitioner must recognize the gain it received in 1999 on the sale of the Powerton and Collins plants under section 1001.” ...

“H-trademark S.A.” applied for a ruling on the tax rules governing a business restructuring where trademarks were transferred to another group company and licensed back – whether Polish arm’s length provisions would apply to the transaction. The company was of the opinion that Polish arm’s length provision (article 11) would not apply, since the arrangement was covered by special Polish provisions related to financial leasing (article 17b-g). Judgement of the Court The Court found that the Polish arm’s length provisions applied to the transaction. Excerpts “In the present case, the legal problem boils down to the correct identification of the nature of the norms arising from Article 11 of the A.p.d.o.p. and its relationship with the provisions on leasing raised by the applicant (Articles 17b – 17g of the A.p.d.o.p.). Indeed, the applicant takes the view that the leasing provisions themselves introduce derogations from market conditions and that, consequently, it is not possible to examine certain activities governed by the leasing provisions on the basis of the criteria provided for in Article 11 of the A.p.d.o.p.” “Therefore, it should be stated that the norm of Article 11 of the A.l.t.d.o.p. constitutes lex specialis in relation to the norms concerning taxation of leasing agreements (Article 17a et seq. of the A.l.d.o.p.). It may therefore also be applied in the case concerning taxation of such agreements. Thus, the Court does not share the view of the Appellant Company that it is the provisions concerning the leasing agreement that constitute lex specialis in relation to Article 11 of the discussed Act. It is also of no significance for the position of the Court that the agreement presented in the description of the future event is not a commonly occurring agreement, and therefore, as the appellant claims, it will not be possible to make determinations on the basis of Article 11 of the A.l.t.d.o.p. This is because the very demonstration that the price would have been different if certain connections on the basis of the aforementioned provision had not occurred is already an element of establishing the facts and conducting tax proceedings in a specific case. Meanwhile, the subject of the present proceedings, was the answer to the question whether the aforementioned provision is excluded in the case of taxation of leasing agreements. In addition, it should be noted that, contrary to the assertions in the application, it was not in the description of the future event, but in the position presented by the party that it stated that: “(…) the initial value of the rights to be used will be determined on the basis of a valuation prepared by an independent entity and will therefore correspond to their market value”.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

This case is about a IP sale-and-license-back arrangement. The taxpayer acquired the shares in BV Z (holding). BV Z owns the shares in BV A and BV B (the three BVs form a fiscal unity under the CITA). BV A produces and sells shoes. In 1993, under a self-proclaimed protection clause, BV A sells the trademark of the shoes to BV C, which is also part of the fiscal unity. The protection clause was supposedly intended to protect the trademark in case of default of BV A. Taxpayer had created BV C prior to the sale of the trademark. In 1994, the taxpayer entered into a licensing agreement with BV C: the taxpayer pays NLG 2 to BV C per pair of shoes sold. Next, BV C is then moved to the Netherlands Antilles, which results in the end of the fiscal unity as of January 1, 1994. The roundtrip arrangement, the sale of an intangible and the subsequent payment of licensing fees, is now complete. In 1999 the royalty for use of the trademark was increased from fl. 2 per pair of shoes to fl. 2.50 per pair, resulting in annual royalty payments of fl. 300.000 from A BV to B BV. The Court disallowed tax deductions for the royalty payments. The payments were not proven to be at arm’s length. B BV had no employees to manage the trademarks. There were no business reasons for the transactions, only a tax motive. Hence the sale-and-license back arrangement was disregarded for tax purposes. Also, the licensing agreement were not found to produce effective protection of the brand and was therefore also considered part of a tax planning plan. Taxpayers often seek to maximise differences in tax rates through selling intangibles to a low- tax country and subsequently paying royalties to this country for the use of these intangibles, thereby decreasing the tax-base in the high-tax country. The arm’s length principle requires taxpayers to have valid business purposes for such transactions and requires them to make sure that the royalties are justified – why would an independent company pay royalties to a foreign company for an intangible it previously owned?’ To adress such situations a decree was issued in the Netherlands on August 11, 2004. The decree provided additional rules for transfers of intangibles when the value is uncertain at the time of the transaction (HTVI). It refers to situations in which an intangible is being transferred to a foreign group company and where this company furthermore licenses the intangible back to the transferor and/or related Dutch companies of this company. In these situations a price adjustment clause is deemed to have been entered. The deemed price adjustment clause prevents a sale at a very low price with a consequent high royalty fee to drain the Dutch tax base. Through the price adjustment clause the Dutch tax authorities are guaranteed a fair price for the sale of the intangible. Click here for translation ...

In the case of Ramsay a substance over form-doctrine was endorsed by the House of Lords (predecessor of the “UK Supreme Court” established in 2009). The “Ramsay principle” has since been applied in other cases involving tax avoidance schemes in the UK, where transactions have been constructed purely for tax purposes. Statutes referring to “commercial” concepts have also been applied in tax cases where transactions have lacked economic substance ...