17 January 2024 the Australian Taxation Office published the final version of its Practical Compliance Guideline PCG 2024/1 Intangibles migration arrangements. The PCG has previously been released in drafts as PCG 2021/D4 and PCG 2023/D2 Intangibles arrangements. The final version sets out ATO’s compliance approach to the tax risks associated with certain cross-border related party intangibles arrangements involving: restructures or changes to arrangements involving intangible assets (referred to as ‘migrations’ in the PCG) the mischaracterisation or non-recognition of Australian activities connected with intangible assets. Changes and additions included in the final version: further clarification of the arrangements in scope exclusion of certain arrangements (‘Excluded Intangibles Arrangement’) from the scope inclusion of a ‘white zone’ for arrangements that have been subject to previous ATO audit or reviews further explaining our compliance approach, including the engagement taxpayers can expect based on the compliance risks associated with an arrangement expanding the guidance allowing taxpayers to group intangible assets or arrangements to make it easier for taxpayers apply the PCG providing more information on the reporting requirements taxpayers can expect to complete the reportable tax position schedule ...

Since 2012, the French company SASU Alchimedics has been owned by Sinomed Holding Ltd, the holding company of a group of the same name set up by a Chinese resident domiciled in the British Virgin Islands. SASU Alchimedics was engaged in the manufacture and marketing of products using electro-grafting technology for biomedical applications and the licensing and assignment of patents in the field of electro-grafting technologies. SASU Alchimedics was subject to an audit for the financial years 2014 and 2015, as a result of which the tax authorities increased its income for the financial years ended 31 December 2013, 2014 and 2015 by the price of services not invoiced to Sinomed Holding Ltd. In addition, the non-invoicing of these services was considered to be a transfer of profits abroad within the meaning of Article 57 of the French General Tax Code and the amounts were therefore also subject to withholding tax. The tax authorities considered that SASU Alchimedics had committed an abnormal act of management by not re-invoicing to its parent company the services provided in connection with the “development and defence of patents”. The price of the services reintegrated as an indirect transfer of profits was determined by applying to the amount of the expenses recorded a cost plus 5%, considered to be a normal margin. These amounts were used as the basis for calculating the withholding tax, which is the only issue in this case. SASU Alchimedics appealed against the assessment and, by judgment of 2 December 2002, the Administrative Court rejected its application for a refund of the withholding tax. An appeal was then lodged with the Administrative Court of Appeal. Judgement of the Court The Administratibe Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the Administrative Court and decided in favor of SASU Alchimedics. Excerpts in English “… 6. In order to justify the existence of an advantage to the company, constituting an indirect transfer of profits, granted to Sinomed Holding Ltd, the tax authorities note that SASU Alchimedics is the owner of patents attached to a business acquired in 2007, and of an exclusive licence on patents and other intangible rights acquired, the same year, from the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) and that it entered into an agreement, on 1 June 2007, with Sinomed Holding Ltd, which will become its parent company, and Beijing Sun Technologie Inc, a company incorporated under Chinese law, owned by Sinomed Holding Ltd, which will become its sister company, a patent licence and sub-licence agreement granting them a perpetual licence for the techniques developed by Sinomed Holding Ltd in return for a one-off payment of 9,530,000 euros. The French tax authorities argued that it was not normal for SASU Alchimedics, following the technology transfer agreement of 1 April 2007, to bear the cost of registering and maintaining the patents and licences alone, without any “financial guarantee in the event of successful marketing of the related products, particularly on the European and American markets”, whereas Sinomed Holding Ltd, which now controls the strategy of the companies it owns, stands to benefit from any future successes and is in a position to prevent it from transferring its assets to a third party. It deduced that by not re-invoicing its parent company, Sinomed Holding Ltd, for services provided in relation to “the development and defence of patents”, despite the fact that it had always been in a loss-making position, SASU Alchimedics had granted an undue advantage to its parent company, constituting an abnormal management practice and an indirect transfer of profits abroad. 7. However, the tax authorities do not dispute that, as SASU Alchimedics points out on appeal, the costs of maintaining and protecting the patents, which were expensed, were its responsibility under the terms of the contract entered into in 2007, which it does not claim was no longer in force. Nor does it dispute that the research expenses invoiced by Beyond and Université Paris-Diderot, and the overheads deducted as expenses, were incurred in the interests of SASU Alchimedics. The fact that this company has a chronic deficit does not, in itself, justify the increase in operating income, nor does the fact that an asset is insufficiently profitable constitute, in itself, an abnormal act of management. The tax authorities have failed to identify the “patent valuation and defence” service that they claim to have identified for the benefit of Sinomed Holding Ltd and the exact nature of the advantage that they intend to impose, and have failed to demonstrate under what obligation SASU Alchimedics should have re-invoiced this company for these expenses. The fact that SASU Alchimedics does not have control over its strategy is not, in itself, a decisive argument proving the reality of services provided for the benefit of Sinomed Holding Ltd. Moreover, the contract concluded with this company and with the company that was to become its sister company was signed in 2007 at a time when it is not alleged that SASU Alchimedics was dependent on Sinomed Holding Ltd, and the investigation shows that SASU Alchimedics did in fact benefit from the patent concessions and sub-concessions, which were remunerated in the form of a single payment in 2007. Lastly, although the French tax authorities invoke the prospect of marketing in Europe and the United States the products already developed by the Sinomed group, and in particular by the Chinese company Sino Medical, under the contract concluded in 2007, during the period in dispute there was nothing to require SASU Alchimedics to have signed a contract with its parent company to have the latter bear the costs of maintaining, registering and defending the patents and licences of which it remained the owner and which are not yet used on its continents, where they were not registered. 8. In these circumstances, the French tax authorities have not established the existence of an advantage granted by SASU Alchimedics to Sinomed Holding Ltd and, consequently, of a practice falling within the scope of Article 57 of the French General Tax Code ...

On 1 February 2010, E.K. and its subsidiary, E. S.A, concluded an agreement on the transfer of E.K.’s trade marks to E. S.A. Following the transfer (on the same day), E.K. concluded with E. S.A. an agreement to grant a licence for the use of the marks in return for payment to the licensor (E. S.A.) of a monthly remuneration. In 2011, E.K. recognised as a deductible expense the royalties paid to E. S.A. According to the tax authorities this resulted in E.K. understating its corporate income tax liability for 2011. According to the tax authorities, E. S.A. did not participate in any way in the creation of revenue, with the result that the profits generated by E.K. were ‘passed on’ in the form of royalties to a related company – E. S.A. The remuneration payable to the legal owner of the trademarks did not take into account the very limited functions performed by that entity in creating the value of the trademarks. The only function performed by E. S.A. in 2011 was to manage the legal protection of the trade marks, for which it would be entitled to a limited remuneration appropriate to its function. After receiving the resulting assessment of additional taxable income, a complaint was then filed by E.K. with the Director of the Tax Chamber which was later dismissed. An appeal was then filed by E.K. with the Administrative Court. Judgement of the Administrative Court. The Administrative Court set aside the Decision of the Tax Chamber and referred the case back to the Tax Chamber. Excerpts “… In the Court’s view, the faulty application of Article 11(1) and (4) of the u.p.d.o.p. affected the manner in which the applicant’s income was estimated and the estimation method adopted by the authorities, based on the erroneous assumption that the transaction analysed by the authorities consisted in the provision of trade mark administration services on behalf of the economic owner of those trade marks. In making that assumption, the authorities applied the net transaction margin method in order to determine the market level of the remuneration payable to the company for its trade mark administration functions. Meanwhile, the applicant provided the tax authority with the data that formed the basis for the calculation of the royalties, as well as the licence agreement. In view of the repetitive nature of such transactions on the market, the applicant used the comparable uncontrolled price method as the correct approach. The Court notes that the estimation of income by the methods indicated in Article 11(2) of the u.p.d.o.p. (comparable uncontrolled price method, reasonable margin method, selling price method) should be considered first, and only when it is not possible to apply these methods, the methods indicated in Article 11(3) of that Act (net transaction margin method, profit sharing method) will be applied. Furthermore, the applicant reasonably pointed out that in the comparability analysis the authorities should have taken into account the fact that intangible assets of significant value (trademarks) were involved in the examined transaction, being the only significant asset analysed by the parties to the examined transaction. As a result, the authorities incorrectly conducted the comparability analysis of the transaction involving the licence for the use of trademarks granted to the applicant by the limited partnership, which prejudges the validity of the allegation of a breach of Article 11(1)-(3) of the u.p.d.o.p. in conjunction with § 3, § 7, § 8, § 10 and § 11 of the MF Regulation. In the opinion of the Court, the basis for the decision in this case was not the provision of Article 11c(4) of the u.p.d.o.p. in the 2019 wording, hence the allegation of violation of this provision contained in the complaint does not merit consideration. In the opinion of the Court, the evidence gathered in the case allowed it to be resolved and, in this respect, the authorities did not fail to comply with Article 122 in conjunction with Article 187 § 1 of the Tax Ordinance. On the other hand, the allegation of a breach of Article 191 of the Tax Ordinance, consisting in the authorities’ faulty assessment of the market nature of the examined legal transactions, is justified. In the context of this allegation, however, it should be stipulated that the reclassification of a legal action by the authorities is not so much the result of a defective assessment of the evidence gathered, but results from the interpretation and manner of application of substantive law provisions adopted by the authorities (Article 11(1) and (4) of the u.p.d.o.p.). As aptly pointed out in the case law, in such a situation the state of facts was not so much established, but adopted by the tax authority. This is because the tax authority determines the factual state not on the basis of established circumstances, but reconstructs it, taking as a directional guideline the taxpayer’s intention to achieve the intended fiscal goal (unauthorised tax benefit). Thus, the state of facts adopted by the tax authorities does not so much result from the evidence gathered in the case, but from the assumption that if the taxpayer was guided only by economic and economic rationale and not by the intention to achieve an unauthorised tax benefit, it is precisely in the way the tax authority wants him to arrange his relations (judgment of the NSA of 8 May 2019, II FSK 2711/18). On the other hand, the consequence of the violation of substantive law is the legitimacy of the allegations of violation of Articles 120 and 121 § 1 of the Tax Ordinance by the authorities. On the other hand, due to the voluminous nature of the complaint, the Court referred to the allegations contained therein and their justification to the extent necessary to conduct a review of the appealed decisions (judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 26 May 2017, I FSK 1660/15). When re-examining the case, the authority will take into account the legal assessment presented above as to the interpretation and application, in the ...

According to Refinitiv Limited a Diverted Profit Tax-notices they had been served for FY 2018 by the tax authorities were unlawful because the tax authorities had used another transfer pricing method (Profit Split) than the method previously agreed (TNMM with a cost based PLI) in respect of the same services in an earlier Advance Pricing Agreement (“APA”) covering FY 2008-2014. Judgement of the Upper Tribunal The Court did not find an inconsistency between the Diverted Profit Tax-notices issued by the tax authorities in respect of 2018 and the APA covering FY 2008-2014. The appeal of Refinitiv Limited was dismissed. Excerpt “90. HMRC’s acceptance that the 2018 profits were referable to the provision of services in 2008-2014 does not therefore assist the claimants’ case. The APA had terminated and had no effect in relation to the pricing of services for the purposes of calculating profits in 2018. The referability did not mean the services had to be priced under an APA that did not have  effect.91. In conclusion there is accordingly no inconsistency between the DPT notices that HMRC issued in respect of 2018 and the APA. The DPT notices concerned an accounting period in relation to which the APA had no effect.” ...

K.P. is active in retail sale of computers, peripheral equipment and software. In December 2013 it had transfered valuable trademarks to its subsidiary and in the years following the transfer incurred costs in form of licence fees for using the trademarks. According to the tax authorities the arrangement was commercially irrationel and had therfore been recharacterised. Not satisfied with the assessment an appeal was filed. Judgement of the Provincial Administrative Court. The Court decided in favor of K.P.  According to the Court recharacterization of controlled transactions was not possible under the Polish arm’s length provisions in force until the end of 2018. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

K. S.A. had made an in-kind contribution to a subsidiary (a partnership) in the form of previously created or acquired and depreciated trademark protection rights for individual beer brands. The partnership in return granted K. S.A. a licence to use these trademarks (K. S.A. was the only user of the trademarks). The partnership made depreciations on these intangible assets, which – due to the lack of legal personality of the partnership – were recognised as tax deductible costs directly by K. S.A. According to the tax authorities the role of the partnership was limited to the administration of trademark rights, it was not capable of exercising any rights and obligations arising from the licence agreements. Therefore the prerequisites listed in Article 11(1) of the u.p.d.o.p. were met, allowing K. S.A.’s income to be determined without regard to the conditions arising from those agreements. The assessment issued by the tax authorities was later set aside by the Provincial Administrative Court. An appeal and cross appeal was then filed with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decisions of the Provincial Administrative Court and dismissed both appeals as neither of them had justified grounds. The Provincial Administrative Court had correctly deduced that Article 11(1) of the u.p.d.o.p. authorises only adjustment of the amount of licence fees, but not the nature of the controlled transactions by recognising that instead of a licence agreement for the use of the rights to trademarks, an agreement was concluded for the provision of services for the administration of these trademarks. Excerpts “The tax authorities, in finding that the applicant had not in fact made an in-kind contribution of trademark rights to the limited partnership, but had merely entrusted that partnership with the duty to administer the marks, referred to Article 11(1) of the u.p.d.o.p. (as expressed in the 2011 consolidated text. ), by virtue of which the tax authorities could determine the taxpayer’s income and the tax due without taking into account the conditions established or imposed as a result of the links between the contracting entities, with the income to be determined by way of an estimate, using the methods described in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 11 u.p.d.o.p. However, these are not provisions creating abuse of rights or anti-avoidance clauses, as they only allow for a different determination of transaction (transfer) prices. The notion of ‘transaction price’ is legally defined in Article 3(10) of the I.P.C., which, in the wording relevant to the tax period examined in the case, stipulated that it is the price of the subject of a transaction concluded between related parties. Thus, the essence of the legal institution regulated in Article 11 of the u.p.d.o.p. is not the omission of the legal effects of legal transactions performed by the taxpayer or a different legal definition of those transactions, but the determination of their economic effect expressed in the transaction price, with the omission of the impact of institutional links between counterparties”  “For the same reasons, the parallel plea alleging infringement of Articles 191, 120 and 121(1) of the P.C.P. by annulling the tax authority’s legal rulings on the grounds of a breach of the aforementioned rules of evidence in conjunction with Articles 11(1) and 11(4) of the u.p.d.o.p. and holding that the tax authority did not correct the amount of royalties and the marketability of the transaction, but reclassified the legal relationship on the basis of which the entity incurred the expenditure, is also inappropriate. In fact, the assessment of the Provincial Administrative Court that such a construction of the tax authority’s decision corresponds to the hypothesis of the 2019 standard of Article 11c(4) of the u.p.d.o.p. is correct, but there was no adequate legal basis for applying it to 2012/2013 and based on Article 11(1) and (4) of the u.p.d.o.p. in its then wording. Failure to take into account a transaction undertaken by related parties deemed economically irrational by the tax authority violated, in these circumstances, the provisions constituting the cassation grounds of the plea, as the Provincial Administrative Court reasonably found.” “Contrary to the assumption highlighted in the grounds of the applicant’s cassation appeal, in the individual interpretations issued at its request, the applicant did not obtain confirmation of the legality of the entire optimisation construction, but only of the individual legal and factual actions constituting this construction, presented in isolation from the entire – at that time – planned future event. Such a fragmentation of the description of the future event does not comply with the obligation under Article 14b § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure to provide an exhaustive account of the actual state of affairs or future event, and therefore – as a consequence – the applicant cannot rely on the legal protection provided under Article 14k § 1 or Article 14m § 1, § 2 (1) and § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

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 ...

The tax authorities had issued a notice of assessment which disallowed tax deductions for royalties paid by R…Cash & C…, S.A. to its Polish parent company, O…Mark Sp. Z.o.o. R… Cash & C…, S.A. appealed to the Administrative Court, which later annulled the assessment. The tax authorities then filed an appeal with the Administrative Court of Appeal. Judgement of the Court The Court of Appeal revoked the judgement issued by the administrative court and decided in favour of the tax authorities. Extracts “It is clear from the evidence in the case file that the applicant has succeeded in demonstrating that the agreement to transfer rights is not based on effective competition, in the context of identical operations carried out by independent entities. The studies presented by the challenger do not succeed in overturning this assertion, since, as is clear from the evidence (12), they relate to operations and market segments other than the one at issue in the case. The provision for the payment of royalties for the transfer of the brands, together with the unpaid provision of management and promotion services for the brands in question by the applicant, prove that there has been a situation that deviates from full competition, with the allocation of income in a tax jurisdiction other than the State of source, without any apparent justification. The application of the profit splitting method (Article 9 of Ministerial Order 1446-C/2001 of 21 December 2001) does not deserve censure. Intangible assets are at stake, so invoking the comparability of transactions, in cases such as the present one, does not make it possible to understand the relationships established between the companies involved. It should also be noted that the Polish company receiving the royalties has minimal staff costs, and that brand amortisation costs account for 97.72% of its operating costs. As a result, the obligations arising for the defendant from the licence agreement in question are unjustified. In view of the demonstration of the deviation from the terms of an arm’s length transaction, it can be seen that the taxpayer’s declaratory obligations (articles 13 to 16 of Ministerial Order 1446-C/2001, of 21.12.200) have not been complied with, as there is a lack of elements that would justify the necessary adjustment. Therefore, the correction under examination does not deserve to be repaired and should be confirmed in the legal order. By ruling differently, the judgement under appeal was an error of judgement and should therefore be replaced by a decision dismissing the challenge.” Click here for English translation. Click here for other translation ...

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has released a new draft of Compliance Guidelines on Intangible Arrangements, PCG 2023/D2. When finalised, the guidelines will set out the ATO’s compliance approach to the development, use and transfer of intangible assets. The guidelines focus on tax risks associated with the potential application of the transfer pricing provisions, withholding tax provisions, capital gains tax (CGT), capital allowances, the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) and the diverted profits tax (DPT). Examples of high-risk intangibles arrangements under the draft guidelines include centralisation of intangible assets bifurcation (separation) of intangible assets non-recognition of local intangible assets and DEMPE activities migration of pre-commercialised intangible assets (HTVI) transfer of intangibles assets to a foreign hybrid entity ...

“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 ...

Following a business restructuring, rights in a trademark developed and used by O.B SA was transferred to a related party “A”. The newly established company A had no employees and all functions in the company was performed by O.B. SA. Anyhow, going forward O.B SA would now pay a license fee to A for using the trademark. The payments from O.B SA were the only source of income for “A” (apart from interest). According to the O.B. group placement of the trademark into a separate entity was motivated by a desire to increase recognition and creditworthiness of the group, which was a normal practice for business entities at the time. In 2014 and 2015 O.B. SA deducted license fees paid to A of PLN 6 647 596.19 and PLN 7 206 578.24. The tax authorities opened an audited of O.B. SA and determined that the license fees paid to A were excessive. To establish an arm’s length remuneration of A the tax authorities applied the TNMM method with ROTC as PLI. The market range of costs to profits for similar activities was between 2.78% and 19.55%. For the estimation of income attributable to “A”, the upper quartile, i.e. 19.55 %, was used. The arm’s length remuneration of A in 2014 and 2015 was determined to be PLN 158,888.53 and PLN 111,609.73. On that basis the tax authorities concluded that O.B. SA had overstated its costs in 2014 and 2015 by a total amount of PLN 13 583 676.17 and an assessment of additional taxable income was issued. A complaint was filed by O.B. SA. Judgement of the Court The Court dismissed the complaint of OB SA and upheld the decision of the tax authorities Excerpts “….the dependence of “A” on the applicant cannot be in any doubt. Nor can it be disputed that the abovementioned dependence – the relationship between ‘A’ and the applicant as described above – influenced the terms agreed between the parties to the licence agreement. Invoices issued by “A” to the company for this purpose amounted to multi-million amounts, and all this took place in conditions in which “A” did not employ any workers, and performed only uncomplicated administrative activities related to monitoring of possible use of the trademark by other, unauthorised entities. All this took place in conditions in which licence fees were, in principle, the main and only source of revenue for “A” (apart from interest), while the trade mark itself in fact originated from the applicant. It was also to it that the mark eventually came in 2017, after the incorporation of “A”. The company’s claims that the hive-off 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 for the authorities to question the tax optimisations, prior to 15 July 2016. This only confirms the position of the authority in the discussed scope.” “The authority carefully selected appropriate comparative material, relying on reliable data concerning a similar category of entrepreneurs. Contrary to the applicant’s submissions, the authority analysed the terms and conditions of the cooperation between the applicant and ‘A’ when it embarked on the analysis of the appropriate estimation method in the circumstances of the case. In doing so, it took into account both the specific subject-matter of the cooperation and the overall context of the cooperation between the two entities. As for the method itself, the authority correctly found that “A” carried out simple administrative activities, and therefore took into account the general costs of management performed by this entity. In this respect it should be noted that the Head of the Customs and Tax Office accepted the maximum calculated indicator of transaction margin amounting to 19.55%. The applied method, which should be emphasised, is an estimation method, which allows only for obtaining approximate values by means of it. Moreover, it is based on comparative data obtained independently of the circumstances of the case, therefore it is not possible to adjust the results obtained on the basis of its principles by the costs of depreciation, as suggested by the applicant, alleging, inter alia, that § 18(1) of the Regulation was infringed by the authority. Moreover, the costs of depreciation of the trade mark by ‘A’ related strictly to its business and therefore did not affect its relations with the applicant. The company also unjustifiably alleges that the authority breached Article 23(3) of the Regulation by failing to take account of the economic reasons for the restructuring of its business in the context of the GKO’s general principles of operation. For, as already noted above, there is no rational basis for accepting the legitimacy of carrying out such restructuring, both in 2015 and thereafter. And the fact of the return of the trademark right to the Applicant only supports this kind of conclusion. Nor can there be any doubt as to the availability to the applicant, in 2015, of an adequate range of data relating to aspects ...

MNE groups may have sound business reasons to centralise ownership of intangibles or rights in intangibles. An example in the context of business restructuring is a transfer of legal ownership of intangibles that accompanies the specialisation of manufacturing sites within an MNE group. In a pre-restructuring environment, each manufacturing entity may be the owner and manager of a series of patents – for instance if the manufacturing sites were historically acquired from third parties with their intangibles. In a global business model, each manufacturing site can be specialised by type of manufacturing process or by geographical area rather than by patent. As a consequence of such a restructuring the MNE group might proceed with the transfer of all the locally owned patents to a central location which will in turn give contractual rights (through licences or manufacturing agreements) to all the group’s manufacturing sites to manufacture the products falling in their new areas of competence, using patents that were initially owned either by the same or by another entity within the group. In such a scenario it will be important to delineate the actual transaction and to understand whether the transfer of legal ownership is for administrative simplicity (as in Example 1 of Annex I to Chapter VI), or whether the restructuring changes the identity of the parties performing or controlling functions related to the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection, and exploitation of intangibles ...

Applying the provisions of Chapters I – III to address these questions can be highly challenging for a number of reasons. Depending on the facts of any given case involving intangibles the following factors, among others, can create challenges: i) A lack of comparability between the intangible related transactions undertaken between associated enterprises and those transactions that can be identified between independent enterprises; ii) A lack of comparability between the intangibles in question; iii) The ownership and/or use of different intangibles by different associated enterprises within the MNE group; iv) The difficulty of isolating the impact of any particular intangible on the MNE group’s income; v) The fact that various members of an MNE group may perform activities relating to the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection and exploitation of an intangible, often in a way and with a level of integration that is not observed between independent enterprises; vi) The fact that contributions of various members of the MNE group to intangible value may take place in years different than the years in which any associated returns are realised; and vii) The fact that taxpayer structures may be based on contractual terms between associated enterprises that separate ownership, the assumption of risk, and/or funding of investments in intangibles from performance of important functions, control over risk, and decisions related to investment in ways that are not observed in transactions between independent enterprises and that may contribute to base erosion and profit shifting. Notwithstanding these potential challenges, applying the arm’s length principle and the provisions of Chapters I – III within an established framework can, in most cases, yield an appropriate allocation of the returns derived by the MNE group from the exploitation of intangibles ...

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has issued draft Compliance Guidelines on intangible arrangements, PCG 2021/D4. These Guidelines will (when finalised)  set out the ATO’s compliance approach to international arrangements connected with the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection and exploitation of intangible assets, specifically, the potential application of the transfer pricing, general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) and the diverted profits tax (DPT) provisions. The capital gains tax and capital allowances provisions will also be discussed in this Guideline where these may be considered alongside, or relevant to, the ATO’s transfer pricing, GAAR or DPT risk assessment. The draft Guidelines sets out ATO’s compliance approach to international arrangements connected with the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection and exploitation (DEMPE) of intangible assets and/or involving a migration of intangible assets. The Guidelines applies to Intangibles Arrangements and focuses on tax risks associated with the potential application of the transfer pricing provisions. It also focuses on other tax risks that may be associated with Intangibles Arrangements, specifically the withholding tax provisions, capital gains tax (CGT), capital allowances, the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) and the diverted profits tax (DPT). The Guidelines has been prepared to accompany the release and publication of Taxpayer Alerts TA 2018/2 Mischaracterisation of activities or payments in connection with intangible assets and TA 2020/1 Non-arm’s length arrangements and schemes connected with the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection and exploitation of intangible assets. It is not the intention of the Guidelines to limit, deter or prevent arm’s length dealings involving intangible assets. Rather it is intended that the Guideline will serve as a point of reference and assist in understanding arrangements which is seen as representing a higher risk from a compliance perspective. Examples of high risk arrangements centralisation of intangible assets bifurcation (separation) of intangible assets non-recognition of local intangible assets and DEMPE activities migration of pre-commercialised intangible assets non-arm’s length licence arrangements ...

S GmbH was an Austrian trading company of a group. In the course of business restructuring, the real estate division of the Austrian-based company was initially separated from the “trading operations/brands” division on the demerger date of 31 March 2007. The trademark rights remained with the previous trading company, which was the parent company of the group, now M GmbH. On 25 September 2007, M GmbH transferred all trademark rights to a permanent establishment in Malta, which was set up in the same year, to which it also moved its place of management on 15 January 2008. Licence agreements were concluded between S GmbH and M GmbH, which entitle S GmbH to use the trademarks of M GmbH for advertising and marketing measures in connection with its business operations in return for a (turnover-dependent) licence fee. The tax authorities (re)assessed the corporate income tax for the years 2008 and 2009. The audit had shown that the licence fees were to be attributed in their entirety to S GmbH as the beneficial owner of the trade marks, which meant that the licence payments to M GmbH were also not to be recognised for tax purposes. S GmbH had created the trademark rights, which had been valued at a total value of €383.5 million in the course of its spin-off; the decisions regarding the use, creation, advertising and licensing of the trademark rights continued to lie with the decision-makers of the operational company advertising the revisions at the Austrian group location. The Maltese management was present at meetings with advertising agencies in Austria, but its activities did not actually go beyond support and administration. The aim of the chosen structure had been a tax-saving effect, whereby the actual taxation of the licence income in Malta had been 5%. A complaint filed by S GmbH was dismissed by the Bundesfinanzgericht. S GmbH then filed an appeal with the Verwaltungsgerichtshof. Judgement of the Court The Court dismissed the appeal of S GmbH and upheld the decision of the tax authorities Excerpts: “In the appeal case, the BFG found that the trademark rights had been created before the separation of the companies. No new trademarks had been registered during the audit period. The advertising line was determined by a two-year briefing of the group and was based on the requirements of the licensees. The brand managers of M GmbH participated in the process, but the decisions were made by the organs of the appellant, which spent over €56 million in 2008 and almost €68 million in 2009 on advertising and marketing.. In contrast, M GmbH had hardly incurred any advertising expenses, and its salary expenses were also disproportionate to the tasks of a company that was supposed to manage corporate assets of almost €400 million in trademark rights and to act as the (also economic) owner of these assets. The minimal salary expenditure, which amounted to a total of € 91,791.0 in 2008 and € 77,008.10 in 2009 and was distributed among eight persons (most of whom were part-time employees), could only be explained by the fact that all relevant trademark administration, maintenance and management tasks were, as in the past, handled either by group companies (by way of group-internal marketing activities) or by specialists commissioned by the group (trademark lawyer, advertising agency) and that M GmbH only acted in a supporting capacity. If, against this background, the BFG assumes, despite the formal retention of the legal ownership of the trademark rights, that the economic ownership of the trademark rights, which had already been created at that time, was also transferred to the appellant at the time of the spin-off, this cannot be seen as an unlawful act which the Administrative Court should take up. If, in the case at hand, the appellant nevertheless concluded licence agreements with M GmbH, the reason for this cannot have been the acquisition of the right of use to which it was entitled from the outset as the beneficial owner. The BFG was therefore correct in denying that the amounts paid by the appellant under the heading of “licence payments” were business expenses. …” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

MNE groups may have sound business reasons to centralise ownership of intangibles or rights in intangibles. An example in the context of business restructuring is a transfer of legal ownership of intangibles that accompanies the specialisation of manufacturing sites within an MNE group. In a pre-restructuring environment, each manufacturing entity may be the owner and manager of a series of patents – for instance if the manufacturing sites were historically acquired from third parties with their intangibles. In a global business model, each manufacturing site can be specialised by type of manufacturing process or by geographical area rather than by patent. As a consequence of such a restructuring the MNE group might proceed with the transfer of all the locally owned patents to a central location which will in turn give contractual rights (through licences or manufacturing agreements) to all the group’s manufacturing sites to manufacture the products falling in their new areas of competence, using patents that were initially owned either by the same or by another entity within the group. In such a scenario it will be important to delineate the actual transaction and to understand whether the transfer of legal ownership is for administrative simplicity (as in Example 1 of the Annex to Chapter VI), or whether the restructuring changes the identity of the parties performing or controlling functions related to the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection, and exploitation of intangibles ...

Applying the provisions of Chapters I – III to address these questions can be highly challenging for a number of reasons. Depending on the facts of any given case involving intangibles the following factors, among others, can create challenges: i) A lack of comparability between the intangible related transactions undertaken between associated enterprises and those transactions that can be identified between independent enterprises; ii) A lack of comparability between the intangibles in question; iii) The ownership and/or use of different intangibles by different associated enterprises within the MNE group; iv) The difficulty of isolating the impact of any particular intangible on the MNE group’s income; v) The fact that various members of an MNE group may perform activities relating to the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection and exploitation of an intangible, often in a way and with a level of integration that is not observed between independent enterprises; vi) The fact that contributions of various members of the MNE group to intangible value may take place in years different than the years in which any associated returns are realised; and vii) The fact that taxpayer structures may be based on contractual terms between associated enterprises that separate ownership, the assumption of risk, and/or funding of investments in intangibles from performance of important functions, control over risk, and decisions related to investment in ways that are not observed in transactions between independent enterprises and that may contribute to base erosion and profit shifting. Notwithstanding these potential challenges, applying the arm’s length principle and the provisions of Chapters I – III within an established framework can, in most cases, yield an appropriate allocation of the returns derived by the MNE group from the exploitation of intangibles ...