Author: Courts of Argentina

Argentina vs Cargill S.A., May 2022, Tax Court, Case No 27.026-I (A 19462)

Argentina vs Cargill S.A., May 2022, Tax Court, Case No 27.026-I (A 19462)
Cargill Argentine SA channelled 98% of its commodity exports through a branch in Uruguay. Cargill Argentine SA invoiced the exports to the branch, but shipped the goods directly to the customers. The prices charged by the branch to its customers could be the same, lower or higher than the price charged by Cargill Argentine SA to the branch, hence it would assume the price risks from the time of purchase from Cargill Argentine SA until the final sale to each customer. Following an audit, the Argentine Revenue Service issued a transfer pricing assessment for FY 2000 to 2003. According to the tax authorities the pricing of the transactions between Cargill Argentine SA and the Branch in Uruguay had not been at arm’s length. Instead of pricing the commodities on the contract date, the tax authorities priced the transactions on the date of shipping – based ... Read more

Argentina vs Malteria Pampa SA, October 2021, Federal Administrative Court, Case No TF 35123-A

Argentina vs Malteria Pampa SA, October 2021, Federal Administrative Court, Case No TF 35123-A
Malteria Pampa S.A in Argentina exported malt to a related intermediary in Uruguay that in turn sold on the goods to the brewery in Brazil at a higher price. The tax authorities applied the Sixth method and issued an assessment where the export price was determined based on the latter price used in the transaction with the brewery in Brazil. Furthermore a substantial fine was issued to the Malteria Pampa S.A. for non compliance. In February 2019 the Tax Court decided in favour of the tax authorities. “That the factual and legal points considered by the customs verification – corroborated in this pronouncement – complied with the application parameters of the TP rules invoked in the Technical Report, forming a solid conviction that the transactional prices of the sale declared in the field “Merchandise Value” of the PE 07-003-EC01-004994-P and PE N° 07-003- EC01-004995-Z of ... Read more

Argentina vs Molinos Río de la Plata S.A., September 2021, Supreme Court, Case No CAF 1351/2014/1/RH1

Argentina vs Molinos Río de la Plata S.A., September 2021, Supreme Court, Case No CAF 1351/2014/1/RH1
In 2003 Molinos Argentina had incorporated Molinos Chile under the modality of an “investment platform company” regulated by Article 41 D of the Chilean Income Tax Law. Molinos Argentina owned 99.99% of the shares issued by Molinos Chile, and had integrated the share capital of the latter through the transfer of the majority shareholdings of three Uruguayan companies and one Peruvian company. Molinos Argentina declared the dividends originating from the shares of the three Uruguayan companies and the Peruvian company controlled by Molinos Chile as non-taxable income by application of article 11 of the DTA between Argentina and Chile. On that factual basis, the tax authorities applied the principle of economic reality established in article 2 of Law 11.683 (t.o. 1998 and its amendments) and considered that Molinos Argentina had abused the DTA by using the Chilean holding company as a “conduit company” to divert ... Read more

Argentina vs Nidera S.A., June 2021, Supreme Court, Case No CAF 38801/2013/CA2-CS2

Argentina vs Nidera S.A., June 2021, Supreme Court, Case No CAF 38801/2013/CA2-CS2
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 ... Read more

Argentina vs Transportadora de Energía SA, December 2019, Supreme Court, Case No CAF 39109/2014/3/RH2

Argentina vs Transportadora de Energía SA, December 2019, Supreme Court, Case No CAF 39109/2014/3/RH2
The tax authorities had recharacterized debt to equity and disallowed deductions for interest payments etc. Decision of the Supreme Court The Court decided in favour of Transportadora de Energía SA and set aside the debt to equity re-characterisation. The court also points to the relevance of transfer pricing studies. The Court noted that the tax authorities had failed to properly review the transfer pricing documentation and benchmarking of the intra-group financing for transfer pricing purposes, and on that basis set aside the assessment. Click here for English Translation Argentina 26 dec 2FALLO CAF 039109_2014_3_RH002 ... Read more

Argentina vs Volkswagen Argentina S.A., December 2019, Court of Appeal, Case No CAF 057064/2013/CA001 – CA002

Argentina vs Volkswagen Argentina S.A., December 2019, Court of Appeal, Case No CAF 057064/2013/CA001 - CA002
The case of Volkswagen Argentina S.A. revolves around benchmarking and comparability adjustments. In the transfer pricing analysis Volkswagen adjusts the results of the tested party (local entity) for extraordinary losses due to local economic conditions. The Federal Court of Appeals supports the adjustment to the results of the tested party and also the approach of averaging out the results of the tested party over a period of three year. Click here for English Translation ARGVW dec 2019 ... Read more

Argentina vs. Nike, June 2019, Court of Appeal, Case No TF 24495-I

Argentina vs. Nike, June 2019, Court of Appeal, Case No TF 24495-I
The tax authorities had partly disallowed amounts deducted by Nike Argentina for three expenses; royalties for use of trademarks and technical assistance, promotional expenses for sponsorship of the Brazilian Football Confederation, and commissions of Nike Inc. for purchasing agents. Issue one and two was dropped during the process and the remaining issue before the tribunal was expenses related to commissions for purchases according to a contract signed between Nike Argentina and Nike Inc. The tax authorities (AFIP) had found that the 7% commission rate paid by Nike Argentina had not been determined in accordance with the arm’s length principle. The tax authorities stated that the purchase management services were provided by NIAC, and that Nike Inc.’s participation was merely an intermediary, and therefore it charged a much higher percentage than the one invoiced by the company performing the actual management. The Court of Appeal ruled ... Read more

Argentina vs Malteria Pampa S.A., February 2019, Tax Court, Case No 35.098-A

Argentina vs Malteria Pampa S.A., February 2019, Tax Court, Case No 35.098-A
Malteria Pampa S.A in Argentina exported malt to a related intermediary in Uruguay that in turn sold on the goods to the brewery in Brazil at a higher price. The tax authorities applied the Sixth method and issued an assessment where the export price was determined based on the latter price used in the transaction with the brewery in Brazil and a substantial fine was also issued to the Malteria Pampa S.A. for non compliance. Decision of the Tax Court “That the factual and legal points considered by the customs verification – corroborated in this pronouncement – complied with the application parameters of the TP rules invoked in the Technical Report, forming a solid conviction that the transactional prices of the sale declared in the field “Merchandise Value” of the PE 07-003-EC01-004994-P and PE N° 07-003- EC01-004995-Z of Maltería Pampa S. A. are manifestly inaccurate, constituting ... Read more

Argentina vs YPF S.A., May 2018, Supreme Court, Case No TF 29.205-1

Argentina vs YPF S.A., May 2018, Supreme Court, Case No TF 29.205-1
The Tax authorities considered that the financial loans made by YPF S.A. to the controlled companies YPF Gas S.A.; Maleic S.A. and Operadora de Estaciones de Servicio constituted a “disposition of income in favor of third parties”, since in the first two cases (loans granted to YPF Gas S.A. and Maleic S.A.) the agreed interest was lower than that provided for in the aforementioned regulations, while in the last case (operation carried out with OPESSA) no interest payment had even been stipulated. Likewise, it estimated that the transfer prices corresponding to gas oil, propane butane exports made to Repsol YPF Trading and Transport S.A. were below the first quartile. Consequently, it made an adjustment to the taxable income. Furthermore, a fine equivalent to 70% of the allegedly omitted tax was issued. At issue before the Supreme Court was only the fine which was set aside ... Read more

Argentina vs. Nike, August 2017, Tribunal Fiscal de la Nación, Case No 24.495-I

Argentina vs. Nike, August 2017, Tribunal Fiscal de la Nación, Case No 24.495-I
The tax authorities had partly disallowed amounts deducted by Nike Argentina for three expenses; royalties for use of trademarks and technical assistance, promotional expenses for sponsorship of the Brazilian Football Confederation, and commissions of Nike Inc. for purchasing agents. Issue one and two was dropped during the process and the remaining issue before the tribunal was expenses related to commissions for purchases according to a contract signed between Nike Argentina and Nike Inc. The tax authorities (AFIP) had found that the 7% commission rate paid by Nike Argentina had not been determined in accordance with the arm’s length principle. The tax authorities stated that the purchase management services were provided by NIAC, and that Nike Inc.’s participation was merely an intermediary, and therefore it charged a much higher percentage than the one invoiced by the company performing the actual management. The Tribunal Fiscal ruled in ... Read more

Argentina vs Nidera S.A., March 2016, National Court, Case No CAF 38801/2013/CS1-CA1

Argentina vs Nidera S.A., March 2016, National Court, Case No CAF 38801/2013/CS1-CA1
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 National Court accepted Nidera S.A.’s appeal in regards to the approach of the tax authorities were only the unfavorable pricing were ... Read more

Argentina vs Alfred C. Toepfer International S.A., March 2015, Supreme Court TF 27.014-I

Argentina vs Alfred C. Toepfer International S.A., March 2015, Supreme Court TF 27.014-I
In the case of Argentina vs Alfred C. Toepfer International S.A,  the “sixth method” had been applied to intra-group transfers of commodities. Click here for Translation Argentina vs Alfred C Toepfer International SA TF 27-014-I ... Read more

Argentina vs Boehringer Ingelheim S.A. , April 2012, Tribunal Fiscal de la Nación, Case No 26713

Argentina vs Boehringer Ingelheim S.A. , April 2012, Tribunal Fiscal de la Nación, Case No 26713
The tax authorities had not contested the method (TNMM) used by the company to assess their transactions with related or affiliated parties. The dispute was therefore limited to certain aspects of the application of the methodology. Boehringer had used ROS indicator (operating profit margin) which the tax authorities accepted for the resale function. But for the manufacturing function the tax authorities applied the ROTC indicator (profit margin on costs and expenses). On the use of foreign comparables the tax court held in favor of the company and remanded the case back to the authorities for a revised assessment. Click here for English Translation Tribunal Fiscal de la Nación ... Read more

Argentina vs Aventis Pharma SA, February 2010, Tribunal Fiscal de la Nación, Case No 29,083-I

Argentina vs Aventis Pharma SA, February 2010, Tribunal Fiscal de la Nación, Case No 29,083-I
The principal activity of Aventis Pharma is manufacturing of pharmaceutical products and the secondary activity is the wholesale of pharmaceutical products; In FY 2000 the company carried out various transactions with related companies and based on a transfer pricing study the company concluded that profits were consistent with those obtained by comparable independent parties. Following an audit the tax authorities issued an assessment of additional income. In dispute were: Granting of extraordinary discounts, Reclassification of operating expenses together with related and non-operating expenses, Use of loss making comparables. The Court decided in favour of Aventis “From the above, it appears that the challenges made by the tax authority to the choice of the firm Bentley Pharmaceutical Inc, are unsubstantiated because they are based on the accusation of other manufacturing activities that were not carried out by the aforementioned company but by related companies, at a ... Read more

Argentina vs Laboratorios Bagó S.A. , November 2006, Tribunal Fiscal de la Nación, Case No 16/11/06

Argentina vs Laboratorios Bagó S.A. , November 2006, Tribunal Fiscal de la Nación, Case No 16/11/06
In the case of Laboratorios Bagó S.A. the National Tax Court, rejected an appeal raised on the grounds that the use of information from third party companies by the tax administration violated the tax secrecy enshrined in Article 101 of Law No. 11,683. Decision of the Tax Court The Court stated that the information used by the tax administration to determine the market price was not covered by tax secrecy. The Court also considered that it was correct to have informed the company of the aforementioned information so that it could exercise its right to defense. Click here for English translation AG vs Bago 2006 ... Read more