UK vs Refinitiv Limited, October 2023, Upper Tribunal, Case No [2023] UKUT 00257 (TCC)

Category: Legality - Legitimacy - Constitutional, MAP - APA | Tag: , , , , , ,
« | »

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 (“APAâ€) 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.”

 

 

 






Related Guidelines

  1. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.33Applying 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...
  2. TPG2022 Chapter IX paragraph 9.58MNE 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....


Related Case Law

  1. Austria vs S GmbH, November 2020, Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Case No Ra 2019/15/0162-3S 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...
  2. Poland vs R. Sp. z o. o., January 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 990/19R. Sp. z o.o. had requested a binding ruling/interpretation regarding tax deduction for the price paid to a related entity under restructuring. The request was denied by the tax authorities, as the question – according to the authorities – could only be answered...
  3. Poland vs R. Group, September 2018, Administrative Court, Case No III SA/Wa 263/18R. Sp. z o.o. had requested a binding ruling/interpretation regarding tax deduction for the price paid to a related entity under restructuring. The request was denied by the tax authorities, as the question – according to the authorities – could only be answered...
  4. Poland vs “Fertilizer Licence SA”, April 2022, Provincial Administrative Court, Case No I SA/Po 788/21“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...
  5. Poland vs “E S.A.”, June 2023, Provincial Administrative Court, Case No I SA/Po 53/23In 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...