It should be noted, however, that in some situations, the transfer or secondment of one or more employees may, depending on the facts and circumstances, result in the transfer of valuable know-how or other intangibles from one associated enterprise to another. For example, an employee of Company A seconded to Company B may have knowledge of a secret formula owned by Company A and may make that secret formula available to Company B for use in its commercial operations. Similarly, employees of Company A seconded to Company B to assist with a factory start-up may make Company A manufacturing know-how available to Company B for use in its commercial operations. Where such a provision of know-how or other intangibles results from the transfer or secondment of employees, it should be separately analysed under the provisions of Chapter VI and an appropriate price should be paid for the right to use the intangibles ...

The SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION is a multinational group of Japanese origin active in among others areas, production and sale of computer products. The group is present in Spain, EPSON IBÉRICA, but has its European HQ in the Netherlands, EPSON EUROPE BV. The main shareholder and sole director of EPSON IBÉRICA S.A.U. was initially Mr. Jose Augusto. However, following a capital increase on 24 April 1986, EPSON IBÉRICA SAU became the subsidiary of the EPSON Group in Spain and Mr. Jose Augusto became a member of its Board of Directors. Mr. Jose Augusto held positions in both EPSON IBERICA and the Dutch parent company EPSON EUROPA until he left on 31 August 2007. As part of his emoluments, EPSON IBERICA made contributions to a pension plan since 1999, totalling EUR 2,842,047.55, including an extraordinary contribution of EUR 2,200,000.00, which was agreed by its Board of Directors on 22 September 2004 and paid to the insurance company managing the pension plan on 25 May 2005, and another contribution of EUR 132,074.67 on 31 July 2007, which was passed on to the Dutch parent company. The accounting expenses entered in the accounts by EPSON IBERICA in this connection amounted to EUR 2 709 972.88 (EUR 2 842 047.55 – EUR 132 074.67), which the entity entered off the books and which, consequently, were not deducted fiscally. In particular, the accounting expense computed in FY 2004 and 2005 for the amount of the commitment assumed (2.2 million euros) was not deducted in that year, in accordance with the provisions of Article 13.3 “Provision for risk and expenses”, of the Consolidated Text of the Corporate Income Tax Law However, when the beneficiary (Mr. Jose Augusto) of these contributions receives the amounts from the retirement plan, the corresponding contributions made are deductible at EPSON IBERICA. In 2009, Mr. Jose Augusto exercised his right to receive the benefits provided for in that pension plan and, therefore, the entity made a negative adjustment of EUR 2,709,972.89 in its tax return for that year, an adjustment which, in the Inspectorate’s opinion, should have amounted to only EUR 473,477.59, since not all the contributions made to the aforementioned pension plan were deductible. The contributions made after that date, which amounted to 263,174.45 euros (10 % of 2,631,744.41 euros). The remaining 90 % of the contribution from 1 January 2002 is deemed to have been made by the parent company in the Netherlands, EPSON EUROPE. – The settlement agreement acknowledges that the adjustment should have been bilateral, since the expenditure actually occurred, but considers this provision inapplicable because EPSON EUROPA is resident in the Netherlands, and Article 9 of Spain’s double taxation agreement with the Netherlands does not provide for bilateral adjustment. – In its tax return for 2010, EPSON IBERICA offset in full, for an amount of EUR 1 359 101.07, the negative tax base which it had claimed to have from the previous year (2009), but which it no longer had following the audit carried out. EPSON IBERICA did not agree with the aforementioned settlement agreements and the imposition of the penalty relating to the FY 2009 and 2010 and filed economic-administrative claims against them before the Central Economic-Administrative Court. The claims were resolved by the Central Economic-Administrative Tribunal on 4 February 2016, rejecting them. EPSON’s legal representatives then filed a contentious-administrative appeal against the above decision, which was processed under case number 314/2016 before the Second Section of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the National High Court, and a judgment rejecting the appeal was handed down on 22 February 2018. The appellant filed a writ requesting a supplement to the previous judgment, and the Chamber issued an order on 14 May 2018, in which it declared that there was no need to supplement the judgment. The High Court also decided in favour of the tax authorities, and this decision was then appealed by EPSON to the Supreme Tribunal. At issue before the Supreme Tribunal was whether or not the tax authorities should have taken into account the disallowed deduction – resulting in a higher income – when determining the arm’s length remuneration of EPSON IBÉRICA which was based on the transactional net margin method (TNMM). Judgement of the Court The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of EPSON IBÉRICA and decided in favour of the tax authorities. Excerpt “The key issue in the present appeal is, in fact, the apportionment of costs between EPSON EUROPA and EPSON IBERICA. The judgment under appeal has chosen to consider the apportionment made by the tax inspectorate to be correct, in the light of the circumstances and the evidence in the proceedings. It is not an arbitrary assessment; it is coherent and reasonable and, therefore, we must abide by its result. The assessments under appeal are therefore in accordance with the law, and the adjustment sought by EPSON IBERICA is not appropriate. Lastly, there is nothing to be said in relation to the penalties, since that issue is not covered by the order for admission. In view of the foregoing, in circumstances such as those described, the answer to the appeal is as follows: ‘the Tax Inspectorate is not obliged to take into consideration the transfer pricing policy of the corporate group, in particular where it is based on the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), when regularising transactions involving companies in the same multinational group, where it is not possible to make the relevant bilateral adjustment, in order to proceed to a full regularisation of the taxpayer’s situation.” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

Bluestar Silicones France (BSF), now Elkem Silicones France SAS (ESF), produces silicones and various products that it sells to other companies belonging to the Bluestar Silicones International group. The company was audited for the financial years 2007 – 2008 and an assessment was issued. According to the tax authorities, the selling prices of the silicone products had been below the arm’s length price and the company had refrained from invoicing of management exepences and cost of secondment of employees . In the course of the proceedings agreement had been reached on the pricing of products. Hence, in dispute before the court was the issue of lacking invoicing of management exepences and cost of secondment of employees for the benefit of the Chinese and Brazilian subsidiaries of the Group. According to the company there had been no hidden transfer of profits; its method of constructing the group’s prices has not changed and compliance with the arm’s length principle has been demonstrated by a study by the firm Taj using the transactional net margin method and the criticisms of its prices are unfounded. The results must be analyzed in the context of heavy investments made by the Bluestar Silicones International sub-group, 80% of which it financed, and which are at the root of the heavy losses recorded in the sub-group’s first fiscal years for the years 2007 to 2009. Furthermore, the business tax adjustments was considered unjustified by the company since, the transfer prices charged did not constitute transfers of profits; Decision of the Court No charge of management fees from Brazil and Hong Kong: “Under these conditions, the administration was justified in considering that BSF’s renunciation to invoice management fees to the Chinese and Brazilian companies of the Bluestar Silicones International group constituted an abnormal act of management. It was thus entitled to correct the company’s profit and also to correct the company’s added value for the determination of its business tax.” No charge of cost of provision of employees in China: “While BSF claims that it derived a direct benefit from the provision of these three expatriates through the development of sales by the Chinese subsidiary, it does not establish this, even though it has been shown that the project manager and the two technicians worked at the Jiangxi site, which was acquiring the technology needed to manufacture products similar to those previously purchased by the Chinese subsidiary from BSF and therefore potentially competing with it. The impossibility of charging such fees due to Chinese legislation has also not been demonstrated, nor has any compensation resulting from insufficient transfer pricing. Under these conditions, the applicant company does not demonstrate that the advantage granted to the Chinese company had sufficient consideration in the interest of its operations and, consequently, was justified by normal management of its own interests.” Additional withholding tax and business tax However, the Court did find that the company was “entitled to argue that the Montreuil Administrative Court wrongly refused to discharge it from the additional withholding tax contributions charged to it for the financial year ended in 2007 and the additional business tax contributions for the year 2007 resulting from the correction made by the tax authorities of its transfer prices practiced with the company BSI Hong Kong.” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

Société Générale S.A. had paid for costs from which its subsidiaries had benefited. The costs in question was not deducted by Société Générale in its tax return, but nor had they been considered distribution of profits subject to withholding tax. Following an audit for FY 2008 – 2011 a tax assessment was issued by the tax authorities according to which the hidden distribution of profits from which the subsidiaries benefited should have been subject to withholding tax in France Société Générale held that the advantage granted by the parent company in not recharging costs to the subsidiaries resulted in an increase in the valuation of the subsidiaries. It also argued that the advantages in question were not “hidden” since they were explicitly mentioned in the documents annexed to the tax return By judgment of 11 October 2018, the court of first instance discharged the withholding taxes as regards the absence of re-invoicing of costs incurred on behalf of the subsidiaries located in Mauritania, Burkina Faso and Benin. Judgement of the Court The Administrative Court of Appeal decided partially in favour of the tax authorities and partially in favour of Société Générale. It discharged Société Générale from withholding taxes relating to non-deductible expenses called “remuneration of DeltaCrédit’s managers” and to the costs incurred on behalf of its Moldovan and Georgian subsidiaries based on an interpretation of the articles on dividends in the relevant tax treaties. Excerpts “…Société Générale did not re-invoice “expenses borne by the head office for the subsidiaries”, expressly mentioned as such in the tables No. 2058 A of non-deductible expenses appended to its returns. Société Générale also assumed the costs of “personnel seconded to foreign subsidiaries”, the “remuneration of the managers of [its Russian subsidiary] Deltacrédit”, and, as mentioned in the previous point, “ITEC transfer prices”, which it spontaneously reintegrated into its taxable income, thus acknowledging the non-deductibility of these expenses. These facts reveal that Société Générale has incurred costs that are normally borne by its foreign subsidiaries. As a result, Société Générale is presumed to have made a transfer of profits to a company located outside France, within the meaning of the aforementioned provisions of Article 57 of the General Tax Code. It is therefore incumbent on it to prove that this transfer involved sufficient consideration for it and thus had the character of an act of normal commercial management.” “In this case, with regard to the “expenses borne by the head office for foreign subsidiaries”, the cost of “personnel seconded to foreign subsidiaries”, and “ITEC transfer prices”, the entries in the tables of non-deductible expenses, which do not specify the precise nature of the benefits granted, nor the beneficiary companies, do not in themselves reveal the existence of the gifts granted. On the other hand, the non-accounting mention made by Société Générale, in Table 2058 A of its income tax return, of the benefit granted to its Russian subsidiary DeltaCrédit by paying the remuneration of its managers, reveals both the purpose of the expense and its beneficiary. This advantage could not therefore be considered as a hidden advantage within the meaning of the provisions of Article 111c of the General Tax Code.” “Lastly, even though no financial transfer was made, the costs unduly borne lead to disinvestment for the company which bore them and to distributed income for the company which benefited from them. It follows that, in terms of French tax law, Société Générale is only entitled to argue that the Montreuil Administrative Court was wrong to reject its request for a discharge in respect of the non-deductible charges referred to as “remuneration of DeltaCrédit’s directors” ” Under Article 7 of the Convention between France and the former USSR, applicable to the income at issue: “1. Dividends paid by a resident of a State to a resident of the other State may be taxed in the first State. However, the tax so charged shall not exceed 15 per cent of the gross amount of such dividends. 2. The term “dividends” as used in this Article means income from shares as well as other income which is subjected to the treatment of income from shares by the laws of the State of which the person making the distribution is a resident. “These stipulations do not cover income deemed to be distributed by virtue of the provisions of Article 111 c) of the General Tax Code which is not subject to the same regime as income from shares. Société Générale is therefore entitled to argue that this income was not taxable in France, pursuant to Article 12 of the same agreement, which provides that “income not listed in the preceding articles (…) received by a resident of a State and arising from sources in the other State shall not be taxable in that other State. “.” “Under the terms of Article 13 of the Franco-Mauritanian, Franco-Beninese and Franco-Burkinabe tax treaties: “income from securities and similar income (income from shares, founders’ shares, interest and limited partnership shares, interest from bonds or any other negotiable debt securities) paid by companies (…) having their tax domicile in the territory of one of the Contracting States may be taxed in that State”. These stipulations, which refer only to the income from securities and similar income they list, do not concern income deemed to be distributed within the meaning of Article 111 c) of the General Tax Code. The Minister is therefore not entitled to argue that the first judges wrongly discharged Société Générale from the withholding taxes applied to the benefits granted to its subsidiaries located in Mauritania, Benin and Burkina Faso, which were not taxable in France.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

EPSON IBÉRICA S.A.U. had deducted the full employee pension costs of a CEO that had worked both for the HQ in the Netherlands and the local Spanish Company. The tax authorities issued an assessment where 90% of the pension costs had been disallowed in regards to the taxable income in Spain. The disallowed percentage of the costs was based on the CEO’s salary allocation between Netherlands (90%) and Spain (10%), cf. the agreement entered between the parties. EPSON IBÉRICA S.A.U. brought the assessment to the Courts. Judgement of the Court The High Court dismissed the appeal of EPSON IBÉRICA S.A.U. and decided in favour of the tax authorities. Excerpt “…this Chamber shares and endorses the detailed reasoning of the TEAC starting from a fundamental fact, that if the contract of 25 June 2004, firmado between Mr. Humberto and Sek, by which the latter was appointed as Riji of Epson, Chairman of Epson Europe BV and President of Epson Ibérica, S.A.U. and of Epson Portugal Informática, S.A., established a distribution of 90% and 10% to be paid by Epson Europe BV and Epson Ibérica SAU, respectively, in order to satisfy the bonus to Mr Hiji, in line with the time worked by Mr Hiji for each of the companies, it is logical that that same proportion should be maintained in respect of the other EUR 2.2 million, as a result of the ‘Your Retirement Package’ and not, as the applicant claims, that that amount should be paid in full by the present appellant. The fact that Mr Humberto had devoted his whole life to the present appellant, before it was called Epson Ibérica, SAU and was absorbed by the multinational group Epson, it was called Tradeteck, is not an obstacle to the inclusion obtained, on the basis not only, as the Inspectorate states, ‘that what he worked until 1986 he would already have received’, but also that it is not congruent with what happened after 2002, the date on which Mr Humberto was appointed President of Epson Europe. BV, a situation or cause from which the contract of 29 June 2004, referred to above, arose. The reasoning of the claim, despite the argumentative effort of the governing document, cannot be admitted, without the invocation of the transfer prices referred to therein being relevant for the resolution of the issue at hand. As regards the impossibility of the bilateral adjustment, we refer to the contested decision. In definitive, the plea must be rejected.” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

It should be noted, however, that in some situations, the transfer or secondment of one or more employees may, depending on the facts and circumstances, result in the transfer of valuable know-how or other intangibles from one associated enterprise to another. For example, an employee of Company A seconded to Company B may have knowledge of a secret formula owned by Company A and may make that secret formula available to Company B for use in its commercial operations. Similarly, employees of Company A seconded to Company B to assist with a factory start-up may make Company A manufacturing know-how available to Company B for use in its commercial operations. Where such a provision of know-how or other intangibles results from the transfer or secondment of employees, it should be separately analysed under the provisions of Chapter VI and an appropriate price should be paid for the right to use the intangibles ...