An activity is not considered to provide a benefit if the sole effect of that activity is either to protect the renderer’s capital investment in the recipient or in other members of the controlled group, or to facilitate compliance by the renderer with reporting, legal, or regulatory requirements applicable specifically to the renderer, or both. Activities in the nature of day-to-day management generally do not relate to protection of the renderer’s capital investment. Based on analysis of the facts and circumstances, activities in connection with a corporate reorganization may be considered to provide a benefit to one or more controlled taxpayers ...

Sierra Spain Shopping Centers Services S.L.U. is part of a multinational group that manages shopping centres. Sierra Spain had deducted expenses for services rendered from a related party in Portugal. According to Sierra Spain, the services were related to strategic management and marketing. The tax authorities considered the expenses non-deductible and issued an assessment of additional taxable income. With respect to the strategic business management services, the tax authorities found that there was no contract between the parties. In addition, the authorities found the justification for the actual provision of services was insufficient. With regard to the marketing services, these were contracted by the Portugal-based entity to an external supplier and subsequently re-invoiced to the related parties receiving the service in Portugal, Brazil and Spain. The tax authorities considered that these services were shareholder costs and therefore not deductible in Sierra Spain. Sierra Spain appealed to the Tax Court, which upheld the assessment of the tax authorities. An appeal was then lodged with the National Court. Judgement of the Court The Court dismissed Sierra’s appeal regarding fees for management services, but ruled in favour of Sierra regarding fees for marketing services. According to the Court, Sierra had not provided sufficient supporting documentation for the management services. The Court considered that the invoices submitted were too general and that the description of the services in the invoices referred to an intercompany agreement that had not been provided. In addition, the Court considered that the internal correspondence submitted as evidence of the services provided only supported the existence of habitual and ordinary relations between the employees of the Spanish and Portuguese companies. Therefore, the requirements laid down in the Spanish legislation to support the deductibility of the management services had not been met. With regard to the expenses for marketing services, the Court stated. “Both the general purpose of the market studies (as described, for example, on p. 16 of the contested decision) and their content, in which the references to the activity carried on in Spain are of significant relevance, support the claimant’s assertion that the marketing services at issue would be subsumed under paragraph 7.14 of the OECD Guidelines, as intra-group services (specifically, as marketing assistance), and not under point 7.9 as shareholder costs (p. 31 of the complaint). Consequently, given the reality of the service, its relation to the Appellant’s activity and the utility or advantage it brings or may bring to its recipient, the deductibility of the expense incurred in 2008 for this specific item must be accepted. In order to consider the latter to be established, that is to say, that we are dealing with shareholder costs which would benefit the group and not the appellant, it is necessary to provide a statement of reasons and a greater effort of argument than that made in the present case by the Tax Inspectorate and by the contested decision. Thus, the reasons given by the tax authorities are not sufficient to establish that the basic and essential premise underlying the concept of shareholder costs is met, that is to say, that we are dealing with an activity for which the appellant entity has no need and which, therefore, it would not be prepared to pay if it were dealing with independent undertakings.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation Spain vs Sierra Jan 2022 AN 151-2022 NW ...

The initial step in applying the simplified approach to low value-adding intra-group services is for the MNE group to calculate, on an annual basis, a pool of all costs incurred by all members of the group in performing each category of low value-adding intra-group services. The costs to be pooled are the direct and indirect costs of rendering the service as well as, where relevant, the appropriate part of operating expenses (e.g. supervisory, general and administrative). The costs should be pooled according to category of services, and should identify the accounting cost centres used in creating the pool. Pass-through costs in the cost pool should be identified for the purposes of applying paragraph 7.61. The cost pool should exclude costs that are attributable to an in-house activity that benefits solely the company performing the activity (including shareholder activities performed by the shareholding company) ...

The following are examples of costs associated with shareholder activities, under the standard set forth in paragraph 7.6: a) Costs relating to the juridical structure of the parent company itself, such as meetings of shareholders of the parent, issuing of shares in the parent company, stock exchange listing of the parent company and costs of the supervisory board; b) Costs relating to reporting requirements (including financial reporting and audit) of the parent company including the consolidation of reports, costs relating to the parent company’s audit of the subsidiary’s accounts carried out exclusively in the interest of the parent company, and costs relating to the preparation of consolidated financial statements of the MNE (however, in practice costs incurred locally by the subsidiaries may not need to be passed on to the parent or holding company where it is disproportionately onerous to identify and isolate those costs); c) Costs of raising funds for the acquisition of its participations and costs relating to the parent company’s investor relations such as communication strategy with shareholders of the parent company, financial analysts, funds and other stakeholders in the parent company; d) Costs relating to compliance of the parent company with the relevant tax laws; e) Costs which are ancillary to the corporate governance of the MNE as a whole. In contrast, if for example a parent company raises funds on behalf of another group member which uses them to acquire a new company, the parent company would generally be regarded as providing a service to the group member. The 1984 Report also mentioned “costs of managerial and control (monitoring) activities related to the management and protection of the investment as such in participations”. Whether these activities fall within the definition of shareholder activities as defined in these Guidelines would be determined according to whether under comparable facts and circumstances the activity is one that an independent enterprise would have been willing to pay for or to perform for itself. Where activities such as those described above are performed by a group company other than solely because of an ownership interest in other group members, then that group company is not performing shareholder activities but should be regarded as providing a service to the parent or holding company to which the guidance in this chapter applies ...

A more complex analysis is necessary where an associated enterprise undertakes activities that relate to more than one member of the group or to the group as a whole. In a narrow range of such cases, an intra-group activity may be performed relating to group members even though those group members do not need the activity (and would not be willing to pay for it were they independent enterprises). Such an activity would be one that a group member (usually the parent company or a regional holding company) performs solely because of its ownership interest in one or more other group members, i.e. in its capacity as shareholder. This type of activity would not be considered to be an intra-group service, and thus would not justify a charge to other group members. Instead, the costs associated with this type of activity should be borne and allocated at the level of the shareholder. This type of activity may be referred to as a “shareholder activity”, distinguishable from the broader term “stewardship activity” used in the 1979 Report. Stewardship activities covered a range of activities by a shareholder that may include the provision of services to other group members, for example services that would be provided by a coordinating centre. These latter types of non-shareholder activities could include detailed planning services for particular operations, emergency management or technical advice (trouble shooting), or in some cases assistance in day-to-day management ...

By judgment of 19 January 2021, the Administrative Court upheld an assessment for FY 2012-2017 issued by the tax authorities on the determination of the arm’s length income resulting from related party transactions. The tax assessment resulted from disallowed deductions for Intra group services provided under a general administrative, legal and financial assistance contract of 22 October 2012 Costs invoiced for the preparation of consolidated accounts Expenses related to “Technical services” for which no explanations had been provided An appeal was filed by Central Hydroelectric de Bulgari EOOD with the Supreme Administrative Court in which the company stated that the decision of the Administrative Court was incorrect. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Supreme Administrative Court partially upheld the decision of the Administrative Court. Excerpts “The present Court of Cassation finds the judgment of the ACGC valid and admissible. The argument of the applicant that the same is inadmissible is unfounded in the part in which the RA was confirmed concerning the increase of its financial result for 2012 by an expense of BGN 188 924.92 for the reason “MECAMIDES technical services”, as well as by an expense of BGN 19 724.92 for a technical expertise under invoice No 13519637/12.04.2012 issued by EDF, France. By its appeal to the ACGC, CENTRAL HYDROELECTRIC DE BULGARI EOOD has appealed against the RA in the part confirmed by the decision of the adjudicating authority. Since the act was confirmed in its entirety in the part of the established corporate tax and interest liabilities for 2012 by the decision No 367/09.03.2020 of the Director of the EITD Directorate – Sofia, the first instance court correctly held that the appeal was also lodged against this part of the RA. The appellant has not explicitly specified the amount of the corporate tax liability and interest established by the RA as a result of the above-mentioned increases in the financial result for 2012 and has not stated that it does not contest the act in this part. The arguments in the cassation appeal that the administrative court committed material breaches of the rules of court procedure, consisting, according to the appellant, in the absence of its own reasoning and failure to consider the material breaches of the administrative procedure rules in the audit proceedings alleged in the appeal, are also unfounded.“ “The decision of the ACCC contains sufficiently substantial and detailed grounds to ensure effective cassation review and to enable the party adversely affected by it to defend itself. The fact that the court considered the defendant’s legal conclusions to be correct does not mean that it did not state its own reasons.” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation Bulgaria Case SAC nr. 8331 ...

Montupet EOOD is a Bulgarian subsidiary in the French Montupet Group which specializes in the production of aluminum components for the automotive industry. In February 2016, the French Group became part of the Canadian LINAMAR Group, which specializes in the manufacture and assembly of components for the automotive industry. The French group and its production facilities (plants in France, Bulgaria, Northern Ireland, Mexico and Spain) retained their core business as part of one of LINAMAR’s five main business areas – light metal casting. Effective 01.01.2017, Montupet SAS and Montupet EOOD entered into a Services Agreement, which canceled a previous agreement of 21.12.2009 in the part concerning the corporate and management services provided. Pursuant to the new agreement, Montupet SAS undertakes to provide Montupet EOOD with business advisory services in various areas such as business strategy and development advice; financial strategy advice; legal advice; human resources strategy advice; pricing advice and price negotiations with global customers; supply chain management assistance and advice; marketing strategy advice; engineering and methods assistance and advice; technical advice; customer contact development. According to the new contract, the pricing mechanism for the services is based on a cost allocation key for the services provided. The revenue authority formed the conclusion that the majority of the services provided by the French company after 01.01.2017 were of a general administrative nature and did not differ significantly in their nature and/or volumes from the services provided to Montupet EOOD under the previous agreement of 21.12.2009. On the basis of the evidence available, no specific additional benefits for the Bulgarian company resulting from the services received in 2017 an going forward could be identified. Furthermore some of the services were not related to the activities of Montupet EOOD, but instead categorized as “shareholder activities” carried out wholly for the benefit of the parent company or other members of the group, which should not be recognised as intra-group services. The tax authorities also disregarded the evidence submitted concerning the market nature of the price of the services in question. An assessment was issued where the deductions for payments under the new service contract had been adjusted based on the arm’s length provisions. Montupet filed an appeal with the Administrative court which was dismissed. An appeal was then filed with the Supreme Administrative Court Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Supreme Administrative Court set aside the decision of the Administrative Court. Excerpts “In the light of the evidence in the case, it is established that the performance of services was agreed between Montupet SAS and Montupet EOOD The NRA Transfer Pricing Manual (fiche 12) states that intra-group services in practice refers to the centralisation of a number of administrative and management services in a single company (often the parent company), which serves the activities of all or a number of enterprises of a group of related parties selected on a regional or functional basis. The provision of such services is common in multinational companies. The concept of intra-group services covers services provided between members of the same group, in particular technical, administrative, financial, logistical, human resource management (HRM) and any other services. According to paragraph 7.5 of the OECD Transfer Pricing Manual for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations (the “OECD Manual”), the analysis of intra-group services involves the examination of two key questions: 1/ whether the intra-group services are actually performed and 2/ what the remuneration within the group for those services should be for tax purposes. Paragraph 7.6 of the OECD Guidance states that, under the arm’s length principle, whether an intra-group service is effectively performed where an activity is carried out for one or more group members by another group member will depend on whether the activity provides the group member concerned with an economic or commercial benefit to improve its trading position. This can be determined by analysing whether an independent undertaking on comparable terms would have been willing to pay for the activity if it had been carried out for it by an independent undertaking or whether it would only have carried it out with its own funds. In the instant case, it is apparent from the reasoning of the opinion rendered by the revenue authorities and the ultimate conclusion of the trial court that part of the income paid for the services constituted a disguised distribution of profits within the meaning of § 1(5)(b). “a” of the Tax Code and as such subject to taxation under the Tax Code. However, the contested decision does not set out any specific considerations in this respect, and there is no analysis of the type of services performed, the actual performance of those services, and the manner in which the remuneration for the services was priced. On the other hand, the conclusion of the revenue administration, which is fully accepted by the national court, that part of the income is not taxable under Article 195(1)(b) of the Code of Conduct. 1 of the Income Tax Act, as well as the impossibility of determining the exact amount of the income falling within the scope of Article 12 of the Income Tax Act is unjustified, as it remains unclear what part of the income earned should not be taxed under Article 195(1) of the Income Tax Act. 1 of the Income Tax Act, respectively do not fall within the scope of the DTT. In the course of the administrative appeal, as well as in the course of the court proceedings, the foreign company submitted evidence, including a list of corporate services for 2017, documentation of Linamar’s transfer pricing for fiscal 2017, a cost allocation statement, evidence of specific benefits received in relation to the services provided, as well as a statement of business trips made by employees of other companies in the Montupet Group in the city of Montupet. Ruse for 2017. Thus, the documents listed were not discussed by the first instance court, leaving unclarified the circumstances concerning the actual performance of the intra-group services, their direct and long-term effect and, accordingly, ...

The initial step in applying the simplified approach to low value-adding intra-group services is for the MNE group to calculate, on an annual basis, a pool of all costs incurred by all members of the group in performing each category of low value-adding intra-group services. The costs to be pooled are the direct and indirect costs of rendering the service as well as, where relevant, the appropriate part of operating expenses (e.g. supervisory, general and administrative). The costs should be pooled according to category of services, and should identify the accounting cost centres used in creating the pool. Pass-through costs in the cost pool should be identified for the purposes of applying paragraph 7.61. The cost pool should exclude costs that are attributable to an in-house activity that benefits solely the company performing the activity (including shareholder activities performed by the shareholding company) ...

The following are examples of costs associated with shareholder activities, under the standard set forth in paragraph 7.6: a) Costs relating to the juridical structure of the parent company itself, such as meetings of shareholders of the parent, issuing of shares in the parent company, stock exchange listing of the parent company and costs of the supervisory board; b) Costs relating to reporting requirements (including financial reporting and audit) of the parent company including the consolidation of reports, costs relating to the parent company’s audit of the subsidiary’s accounts carried out exclusively in the interest of the parent company, and costs relating to the preparation of consolidated financial statements of the MNE (however, in practice costs incurred locally by the subsidiaries may not need to be passed on to the parent or holding company where it is disproportionately onerous to identify and isolate those costs); c) Costs of raising funds for the acquisition of its participations and costs relating to the parent company’s investor relations such as communication strategy with shareholders of the parent company, financial analysts, funds and other stakeholders in the parent company; d) Costs relating to compliance of the parent company with the relevant tax laws; e) Costs which are ancillary to the corporate governance of the MNE as a whole. In contrast, if for example a parent company raises funds on behalf of another group member which uses them to acquire a new company, the parent company would generally be regarded as providing a service to the group member. The 1984 Report also mentioned “costs of managerial and control (monitoring) activities related to the management and protection of the investment as such in participations”. Whether these activities fall within the definition of shareholder activities as defined in these Guidelines would be determined according to whether under comparable facts and circumstances the activity is one that an independent enterprise would have been willing to pay for or to perform for itself. Where activities such as those described above are performed by a group company other than solely because of an ownership interest in other group members, then that group company is not performing shareholder activities but should be regarded as providing a service to the parent or holding company to which the guidance in this chapter applies ...

A more complex analysis is necessary where an associated enterprise undertakes activities that relate to more than one member of the group or to the group as a whole. In a narrow range of such cases, an intra-group activity may be performed relating to group members even though those group members do not need the activity (and would not be willing to pay for it were they independent enterprises). Such an activity would be one that a group member (usually the parent company or a regional holding company) performs solely because of its ownership interest in one or more other group members, i.e. in its capacity as shareholder. This type of activity would not be considered to be an intra-group service, and thus would not justify a charge to other group members. Instead, the costs associated with this type of activity should be borne and allocated at the level of the shareholder. This type of activity may be referred to as a “shareholder activity”, distinguishable from the broader term “stewardship activity” used in the 1979 Report. Stewardship activities covered a range of activities by a shareholder that may include the provision of services to other group members, for example services that would be provided by a coordinating centre. These latter types of non-shareholder activities could include detailed planning services for particular operations, emergency management or technical advice (trouble shooting), or in some cases assistance in day-to-day management ...