If a controlled taxpayer is comparable to a purchasing agent that does not take title to property or otherwise assume risks with respect to ownership of such goods, the commission earned by such purchasing agent, expressed as a percentage of the purchase price of the goods, may be used as the appropriate gross profit markup ...

73. Första is a consumer goods company organised and operating in country A. Prior to Year 1, Första produces Product Y in country A and sells it through affiliated distribution companies in many countries around the world. Product Y is well recognised and attracts a premium compared to its competitors, to which Första is entitled as the legal owner and developer of the trademark and related goodwill giving rise to that premium. 74. In Year 2, Första organises Company S, a wholly owned subsidiary, in country B. Company S acts as a super distributor and invoicing centre. Första continues to ship Product Y directly to its distribution affiliates, but title to the products passes to Company S, which reinvoices the distribution affiliates for the products. 75. Beginning in Year 2, Company S undertakes to reimburse the distribution affiliates for a portion of their advertising costs. Prices for Product Y from Company S to the distribution affiliates are adjusted upward so that the distribution affiliate operating profit margins remain constant notwithstanding the shift of advertising cost to Company S. Assume that the operating profit margins earned by the distribution affiliates are arm’s length both before and after Year 2 given the concurrent changes in product pricing and the reimbursement of advertising costs. Company S performs no functions with regard to advertising nor does it control any risk related to marketing the products. 76. In Year 3, the prices charged by Första to Company S are reduced. Första and Company S claim such a reduction in price is justified because Company S is now entitled to income related to intangibles. It asserts that such income is attributable to intangibles in respect of Product Y created through the advertising costs it has borne. 77. In substance, Company S has no claim to income derived from the exploitation of intangibles with respect to Product Y. It performs no functions, assumes no risk, and in substance bears no costs related to the development, enhancement, maintenance or protection of intangibles. Transfer pricing adjustments to increase the income of Första in Year 3 and thereafter would be appropriate ...

Nidera S.A. exported commodities (cereals, oilseeds etc.) via group traders domiciled on the British Virgin Islands. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, in transactions involving entities domiciled in low-tax jurisdictions, it was presumed that prices had not been agreed in accordance with the arm’s length principle. The tax authorities issued an adjustment by applying the “CUP” method (Sixth method), considering the statistical average prices set as a reference value by the National Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, corresponding to the date of shipment (and not to the date of agreement as claimed by the claimant). However adjustments were only made to those transactions where the quoted price was higher than the one agreed by Nidera S.A. An appeal was filed with the National Court by Nidera S.A. In 2016 the National Court of Appeals issud ist decision in the case. The decision was in favour of Nidera S.A. in regards to the approach of the tax authorities were only the unfavorable pricing were being adjusted whereas the favorable pricing were not, and referred the case back to the lower court. In all other regards the appeal of Nidera was dismissed and the assessment upheld. Both the tax authorities and Nidera S.A filed an appeal against this decision. Nidera complained about the incorrect use of the “comparable uncontrolled price” method, as it considers that this only allows a comparison between controlled and uncontrolled “agreement” prices, but not the use the prices at the date of “shipment”, as the Treasury did. The tax authorities appealed the part of the judgment under appeal which revoked the ex officio assessment on the grounds that it was unreasonable that, in order to calculate Nidera’s income tax for the 2001 tax period, the tax authority had adopted as valid the “comparable uncontrolled” price only in those transactions in which it was higher than the “agreed” price, whereas it did not do so when it was lower than the price declared by the exporter.” Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court decided in favour of the tax authorities and amended the 2016 decision National Court of Appeals. The court considers that the tax authorities’ adjustment-criterion does not appear to be contrary to the system adopted by Law 25.063, which is intended to challenge transfer prices only when they are lower than those obtained in “normal market practices between independent parties”, in order to safeguard the integrity of Argentine source income. On the contrary, it is clear that when the price of the transaction declared by the exporter is higher than the price agreed in normal market practices between independent parties, the Tax Authorities should not object, since the Argentine source income is not, in that case, compromised. This does not imply granting retroactive validity to the provisions of Law 25.784, but rather a logical application of the mechanism established by the legislator when enacting Law 25.063 to challenge transfer prices in order to protect, as stated above, the integrity of Argentine source income. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

On 23 September 2020, the Federal Administrative Court in Mexico issued a not yet published decision in a dispute between the Mexican tax authorities (SAT) and Canadian mining group First Majestic Silver Corp’s Mexican subsidiary, Primero Empresa Minera. The court case was filed back in 2015 by the tax authorities, to cancel an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) issued to Primero Empresa Minera back in 2012. According to the APA, a methodology had been determined allowing the Mexican mining company to sell silver at 4.04 dollars per ounce to a group company based in Barbados (Silver Trading Barbados Ltd) via Luxembourg, when the average market price of silver was above 30 dollars. The APA was applied by Primero Empresa Minera for FY 2010 – 2014. The Federal Court decided in favor of the tax authorities that the APA was invalid and therefore nullified. After receiving the decision from the Federal Court, First Majestic on 25 September 2020 issued a press release stating that “the Federal Court’s decision was not arrived following regular procedures, was undertaken hastily, and did not provide opportunity for the presentation of evidence from PEM. In addition, the decision is inconsistent with previous legal precedents and violates the Federal Mexican Constitution. The Company continues to assess all of its legal options, both domestic and international including under the North American Free Trade Agreement, and will make additional updates, when necessary, on its legal plan of action.“ In a later press release dated 11 November 2020 it was announced that First Majestic intended to appeal the decision to the Circuit Court prior to the December 1, 2020 deadline. Prior to receiving the court’s decision, First Majestic had stated that, SAT illegally chose to ignore the legal existence of an advance pricing agreement and that to address the  unjustified conduct of the authorities the group would issue a notice of intent to submit a claim (notice) under the provisions of Chapter 11 of NAFTA trade agreement. This notice of intent was published in may 2020 . According to the notice, the amount of compensation to be claimed in the arbitration proceedings has been estimated by a minimum amount of $500 million, in addition to any applicable interest, costs and expenses of the arbitration proceedings. In a later press release from 10 March, First Majestic elaborates further on the case and background ...

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

Mining group BHP Billiton had not in it’s Australian CfC income included income from associated British group companies from sales of Australian goods through Singapore. The tax authorities held that the British companies in BHP’s dual-listed company structure fell within a definition of “associate”, and part of the income should therfore be taxed in Australia under local CfC legislation. In December 2017 BHP won the case in an administrative court but this decision was appealed to the Federal Court by the authorities. The Federal Court found in favor of the tax authority. The court found that both BHP’s Australian and British arms are associates, and therefore subject to tax in Australia under Australien CfC rules. BHP has now asked the High Court for leave to appeal ...

Gazprom Chemical Fiber had previously sold goods directly to the final buyers, but now an intermediate trading hub had been established – the Trading House – through which sales and purchases were now passed. Following an audit, the tax authorities concluded that the cost of purchasing goods, as well as sales revenues following the establishment of the Trading hub, had been affected by non-arm’s length prices resulting in an understatement of taxable income. The court of first instance found the tax authorities arguments to be legitimate.The court of appeal overturned the decision of the court of first instance and ruled in favor of the taxpayer.The Supreme Court found the appellate court’s decision to be justified. According to the Supreme Court the tax authorities had gone beyond it’s statutory powers. There were no “multiple deviation” from market prices. A12-39246-2016 ...

73. Första is a consumer goods company organised and operating in country A. Prior to Year 1, Första produces Product Y in country A and sells it through affiliated distribution companies in many countries around the world. Product Y is well recognised and attracts a premium compared to its competitors, to which Första is entitled as the legal owner and developer of the trademark and related goodwill giving rise to that premium. 74. In Year 2, Första organises Company S, a wholly owned subsidiary, in country B. Company S acts as a super distributor and invoicing centre. Första continues to ship Product Y directly to its distribution affiliates, but title to the products passes to Company S, which reinvoices the distribution affiliates for the products. 75. Beginning in Year 2, Company S undertakes to reimburse the distribution affiliates for a portion of their advertising costs. Prices for Product Y from Company S to the distribution affiliates are adjusted upward so that the distribution affiliate operating profit margins remain constant notwithstanding the shift of advertising cost to Company S. Assume that the operating profit margins earned by the distribution affiliates are arm’s length both before and after Year 2 given the concurrent changes in product pricing and the reimbursement of advertising costs. Company S performs no functions with regard to advertising nor does it control any risk related to marketing the products. 76. In Year 3, the prices charged by Första to Company S are reduced. Första and Company S claim such a reduction in price is justified because Company S is now entitled to income related to intangibles. It asserts that such income is attributable to intangibles in respect of Product Y created through the advertising costs it has borne. 77. In substance, Company S has no claim to income derived from the exploitation of intangibles with respect to Product Y. It performs no functions, assumes no risk, and in substance bears no costs related to the development, enhancement, maintenance or protection of intangibles. Transfer pricing adjustments to increase the income of Första in Year 3 and thereafter would be appropriate ...

Singapore marketing hubs are being used by large multinational companies — and billions of dollars in related-party transactions that are being funnelled through the hubs each year. The Australian Tax Office has issued claims of substantial unpaid taxes to mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton. BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto have revealed through the Senate inquiry they have been issued amended assessments for tax, interest and penalties of $522 million and $107 million respectively. These claims will be challenged in court. The cases centres on the use of commodity trading/marketing hubs established in Singapore colloquially known as the Singapore Sling. The Australian taxation commissioner alleges Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton is using subsidiaries in Singapore to reduce the taxes in Australia. It has been revealed that from 2006 to 2014, BHP Billiton sold $US210 billion worth of resources to its Singapore subsidiary. That was then on-sold to customers for $US235 billion — a $US25 billion mark-up over eight years. After expenses, the Singapore marketing hub was left with a $US5.7 billion profit over those eight years. The key is to sell commodities to a related entity in Singapore at say $50 tonne. The company in Singapore can then sell the ore to clients at say the market price of $70 tonne. Profit gets registered in Singapore, not in Australia, and the company tax rate in Singapore is a lot lower, around 15 per cent. So companies can effectively transfer the profit to those lower taxing destinations. While the ATO accepts there are legitimate business activities being conducted in Singapore (shipping, insurance, and so-called marketing), the question is whether the profits attributable to the Singapore hubs are reasonable. BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto have revealed through the Senate inquiry they have been issued amended assessments for tax, interest and penalties of $522 million and $107 million respectively. In BHP’s case, its Singapore hub is owned 58 per cent by BHP Australia, and 42 per cent by BHP UK. Under Australian laws, profits on the 58 per cent are attributed back to Australia, and subject to company tax at 30 per cent. That has resulted in BHP paying $945 million of Australian tax on the Singapore profits from 2006 to 2014. But profits on the 42 per cent of the Singapore marketing hub that are owned by BHP UK escape the Australian tax net, so the more profits apportioned to Singapore, the less tax paid in Australia. The reason why BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto get an Australian tax advantage from the Singapore hubs is because of their dual listing on the London and Australian stock exchanges. That allows them to put ownership of the Singapore hub partly in the hands of their UK related companies ...

This case relates to sales of crude oil from the Russian company, Dulisma Oil,  to an unrelated trading company, Concept Oil Ltd, registered in Hong Kong. The Russian tax authorities found that the price at which oil was sold deviated from quotations published by the Platts price reporting agency. They found that the prices for particular deliveries had been lower than the arm’s length price and issued a tax assessment and penalties of RUB 177 million. Dulisma Oil had set the prices using quotations published by Platts, which is a common practice in crude oil trading. The contract price was determined as the mean of average quotations for Dubai crude on publication days agreed upon by the parties, minus a differential determined before the delivery date “on the basis of the situation prevailing on the market”. Transfer pricing documentation had not been prepared, and the company also failed to explain the method by which the price had been calculated and how the price differential was determined. In the tax assessment, the tax authorities used the same quotation for comparison in the pricing of the transactions, but adjusted for ESPO M1 differential (added the minimum premium), which was determined at the date closest to the signing of the contract addendum. The court ruled in favor of the Russian tax authorities. In the judgement the court pointed to the fact that there was no transfer pricing documentation supporting the pricing of the transaction as an argument in favor of the transfer pricing method used by the Russian tax authorities. The court did not accept the company’s arguments that the Hong Kong trader was an unrelated party. Counteragents registered in offshore zones are to be treated as related parties according to Russian legislation. Click here for translation ...

In 2012, ZAO NK Dulisma, a Russian oil and gas company, sold crude oil via an unrelated Hong Kong-based trader. In Russia, transactions with unrelated parties may be deemed controlled transactions for Transfer Pricing purposes, provided certain conditions are met. The Russian Tax Authorities audited the transactions with the Hong Kong trader and found that the price had been understated. The arm’s length price was determined using a CUP method, based on data from Platts quote for Dubai grade oil, adjusted for quality and terms of delivery etc. The court ruled in favor of the tax authorities, confirming that the application of the CUP method and the use of Platts data was justified. Click here for translation ...

Nidera S.A. exported commodities (cereals, oilseeds etc.) via group traders domiciled on the British Virgin Islands. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, in transactions involving entities domiciled in low-tax jurisdictions, it was presumed that prices had not been agreed in accordance with the arm’s length principle. The tax authorities issued an adjustment by applying the “CUP” method (Sixth method), considering the statistical average prices set as a reference value by the National Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, corresponding to the date of shipment (and not to the date of agreement as claimed by the claimant). However adjustments were only made to those transactions where the quoted price was higher than the one agreed by Nidera S.A. Judgement of the Court The Supreme Court accepted Nidera S.A.’s appeal in regards to the approach of the tax authorities were only the unfavorable pricing were being adjusted whereas the favorable pricing were not, and referred the case back to the lower court. In all other regards the appeal of Nidera was dismissed and the assessment upheld. Click here for English Translation ...