Arditi S.p.A. is an Italian group in the lighting industry. It has a subsidiary in Hong Kong which in turn holds the shares in a Chinese subsidiary where products are manufactured. Following an audit the tax authorities held that the entities in Hong Kong and China had used the trademark owned by the Italian parent without paying royalties, and on the basis of the arm’s length principle a 5% royalty was added to the taxable income of Arditi S.p.A. Arditi appealed against this assessment alleging that it had never received any remuneration for the use of its trademark by the subsidiary, and in any case that the tax authorities had not determined the royalty in accordance with the arm’s length principle. The Court of first instance upheld the appeal of Arditi and set aside the assessment. An appeal was then filed by the tax authorities ... Continue to full case

The customs value declared by “Import GmbH” of the goods imported from related parties X, Y and Z was in dispute. In the course of a customs audit, the customs office (Hauptzollamt, HZA) found that Y had invoiced “Import GmbH” for subsequent debit amounts of EUR (…) for 2015, EUR (…) for 2016 and EUR (…) for 2017. These were based on a Distribution Agreement of (…) concluded between “Import GmbH” and Y, according to which “Import GmbH” undertook to purchase products from the latter and to sell them in the defined distribution area. With the 1st Supplementary Agreement of (…), supplies from affiliated companies of the group company were also included in this agreement and thus, inter alia, also the supplies from Z. With the second supplementary agreement of the same date, it was stipulated that “Import GmbH” should receive an “agreed margin” which ... Continue to full case

H-Customs GmbH – the applicant and appellant – is a subsidiary of H, Japan. In the period at issue, from 17 October 2009 to 30 September 2010, H-Customs GmbH imported more than 1,000 consignments of various goods from H, which it had cleared for free circulation under customs and tax law at the defendant HZA (Hauptzollamt – German Customs Authorities). H-Customs GmbH declared the prices invoiced to it by H Japan as the customs value. Some of the imported articles were duty-free; for the articles that were not duty-free, the HZA imposed customs duties of between 1.4 % and 6.7 % by means of import duty notices. In 2012, H-Customs GmbH applied to the HZA for a refund of customs duties for the goods imported during the period at issue in the total amount of… €. It referred to an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) concluded ... Continue to full case

In 2014 a profit transfer agreement was effectively concluded between the plaintiff, C GmbH (controlled company), and its sole shareholder A. The profits to be transferred and interest to be paid for the disputed years 2009-2011 were subsequently booked to a “liabilities to shareholders” clearing account, but counterclaims or lump sum payments were not booked. The tax Authorities did not recognize the profit transfer agreement for 2009-2011 on the grounds that the agreement had not actually been implemented before 2014. Merely posting a liability to the clearing account is not sufficient. An appeal was filed by C GmbH. Judgement of the FG The FG dismissed the appeal. The court agreed with the tax authorities and concluded that the 2014 profit transfer agreement had not actually been carried out for 2009-2011. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ... Continue to full case

Vincenzo Zucchi spa is an Italian company that operates in the textile sector. Following an audit an assessment was issued related to various controlled transaktions – deductions for bad debt, deductions for costs, lack of income on a loan, income from sale of goods to foreign subsidiaries, cost of goods and services purchased from subsidiaries in non EU countries, costs of employees VAT etc. The adjustment was partially upheld and partially dismissed by the Court of Appeal. An appeal and cross appeal was then filed with the Supreme Court by the tax authorities and Vincenzo Zucchi. Among the objections in the cross appeal filed by Vincenzo Zucchi was a claim stating that transfer pricing rules were not applicable in the case since the group was using global tax consolidation. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court upheld the second plea in the main appeal ... Continue to full case

The Administrative Court found that a voluntary redemption of shares was not a controlled transaction covered by arm’s length provisions. A redemption is a corporation’s repurchase of all or a portion of the shares held by a shareholder at an amount not in excess of the amount stated in the articles or calculated according to a formula stated in the articles. A redemption of shares can only take place between a company and its shareholders. Hence, terms and pricing of the transaction cannot be determined based on unrelated transactions. The purpose of the redemption of shares is not to modify the amount of income achieved by the related parties by applying a non-arm’s length price. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ... Continue to full case

By judgment of 13 March 2020, the Provincial Administrative Court upheld the complaint filed by K.O. and revoked a decision issued by the tax authorities on the determination of the amount of the tax liability resulting from a transfer of shares between K.O. and a related party in 2016. An appeal was filed by the tax authorities with the Supreme Administrative Court in which the authorities stated that Provincial Administrative Court incorrectly had concluded that the nominal value of shares taken up by a taxpayer is not subject to market mechanisms and, therefore, the authority should not question the revenue thus generated. According to the tax authorities the taxpayer effected a transaction with a related entity of which it was the owner and determined without justification a contribution in-kind disproportionately high in relation to the shares acquired in the related entity, while the authority, taking ... Continue to full case

A. Sp. z o.o. was established to carry out an investment project consisting in construction of a shopping center. In order to raise funds, the company concluded a loan agreement. The loan agreement was guaranteed by shareholders and other related parties. By virtue of the guarantees, the guarantors became solitarily liable for the Applicant’s obligations. The guarantees were granted free of charge. A. Sp. z o.o. was not obliged to pay any remuneration or provide any other mutual benefit to the guarantors. In connection with the above description, the following questions were asked: (1) Will A. Sp. z o.o. be obliged to prepare transfer pricing documentation in connection with the gratuitous service received, and if so, both for the year in which the surety is granted to the Applicant or also for subsequent tax years during the term of the security? (2) Will A. Sp ... Continue to full case

By a notice of December 2020, the Court of Appeal of Brussels referred the following question for a preliminary ruling by the Constitutional Court : “ Does article 207, second paragraph, ITC (1992), as it applies, read together with article 79 ITC (1992), in the interpretation that it also applies to abnormal or gratuitous advantages obtained by a Belgian company from a foreign company, violate articles 10, 11 and 172 of the Constitution? “. The Belgian company “D.W.B.”, of which Y.S. and R.W. were the managers, was set up on 4 October 2006 by the Dutch company “W.”. On 25 October 2006, the latter also set up the Dutch company “D.W.” On 9 November 2006, bv “W.” sold its shareholdings in a number of subsidiaries of the D.W. group to its subsidiary nv ” D.W. “. It was agreed that 20 % of the selling ... Continue to full case

The company is a producer of household chemicals and belongs to the R. B. (“the Group”), which is active in the manufacture and sale of consumer products in the home, health and hygiene products industry. The Company has entered into supply agreements for the goods it produces with Group companies. On the basis of the agreements, the Applicant sells goods produced by it to entities of the Group indicated by R. A. h. Companies and to R.B. [E.] B.V. The remuneration of the Polish company was determined based on a target margin – and if the profits were below or above the target margin, an invoice was issued subtracting or adding income to arrive at the target income. The tax authorities held that the quarterly “Transfer Pricing-adjustment” was not a transfer in regards of VAT. The company then filed a request for a individual interpretation ... Continue to full case

SA Compagnie Gervais Danone was the subject of an tax audit at the end of which the tax authorities questioned, among other things, the deduction of a compensation payment of 88 million Turkish lira (39,148,346 euros) granted to the Turkish company Danone Tikvesli, in which the french company holds a minority stake. The tax authorities considered that the payment constituted an indirect transfer of profits abroad within the meaning of Article 57 of the General Tax Code and should be considered as distributed income within the meaning of Article 109(1) of the Code, subject to the withholding tax provided for in Article 119a of the Code, at the conventional rate of 15%. SA Compagnie Gervais Danone brought the tax assessment to the administrative court. In a decision of 9 July 2019 the Court discharged SA Compagnie Gervais Danone from the taxes in dispute. This decision ... Continue to full case

In this ruling Bondo Tea Estates Ltd. challenged an adjustment made by the tax authorities to the price at which green leaf tea was supplied by the applicant to Kijura Tea Company Limited, a related party. The ruling also concerns disallowance of an assessed loss of Shs. 220,985,115. Bondo Tea Estates Ltd. is an out grower of tea which it supplies to an associated company, Kijura Tea Company Limited. In 2018, the tax authorities conducted an audit for FY 2016/2017 which purportedly revealed that the company had under declared its sales (price of 320 compared to range of 500-700) and that it had unreconciled retained earnings and current liabilities. On that basis the tax authorities adjusted the price of the related party transactions and issued an assessment of Shs. 544,409,110 of which Shs. 174,409,650 was principal income tax, Shs. 348,819,302 penalty and Shs. 20,929,158 interest ... Continue to full case

New Wave Norway AS is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Swedish New Wave Group AB. The group operates in the wholesale market for sports and workwear and gift and promotional items. It owns trademark rights to several well-known brands. The sales companies – including New Wave Norway AS – pay a concept fee to New Wave Group AB, which passes on the fee to the concept-owning companies in the Group. All trademark rights owned by the group are located in a separate company, New Wave Group Licensing SA, domiciled in Switzerland. For the use of the trademarks, the sales companies pay royalties to this company. There is also a separate company that handles purchasing and negotiations with the Asian producers, New Wave Group SA, also based in Switzerland. For the purchasing services from this company, the sales companies pay a purchasing fee (“sourcing fee”) ... Continue to full case

PT Nanindah Mutiara Shipyard Ltd reported losses for FY 2013. The tax authorities issued an assessment where the income of the company was increased by a substantial amount referring to applicable transfer pricing regulations. Nanindah Mutiara Shipyard Ltd filed a complaint with the Tax Court, but the Tax Court upheld the assessment. An application for judicial review was then filed with the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Nanindah Mutiara Shipyard Ltd. The Tax Court had erred in assessing facts, data, evidence and application of the law. The decision of the Tax Court was canceled and the petition for judicial review was granted. Losses reported by Nanindah Mutiara Shipyard Ltd were not due to non-arm’s length pricing, but rather exceptional circumstances that occurred at the local company in the years following 2010. Excerpts: ” … a. that the reasons ... Continue to full case

At issue in this case was whether or not it is possible to regularize transactions between companies by directly applying art. 9.1 of DTA between Spain and French, without resorting to the transfer pricing methods provided for in local Spanish TP legislation. Application of article 9 and taxing according to local tax legislation is often a question of determining the arm’s length price. But sometimes other rules will apply regardless of the value – for instance anti avoidance legislation where the question is not the price but rather the justification and substance of the transaction. In the present case the arm’s length price of the relevant transaction was not discussed, but rather whether or not transaction of shares had sufficient economic substance to qualify for application of Spanish provisions for tax depreciation of the shares in question. The National Court understood that the share acquisition ... Continue to full case

Atlas Copco Tanzania Ltd. is part of Atlas Copco Group, a conglomerate of multinational companies headquartered in Sweden. The group produces and sell compressors, vacuum solutions, generators, pumps, power tools etc. Apart from supplying generators in Tanzania on its own, Atlas Tanzania sold generators as an agent of its sister companies which had no presence in the country. For the latter type of sales, known as “indent sales”, Atlas Tanzania earned a commission. Being oblivious that the commission income attracted Value Added Tax (“VAT”), Atlas Tanzania did not file any VAT returns on indent sales until its external auditors, KPMG, informed it of the requirement. By then, Atlas Tanzania had posted in its sales ledgers commission income amounting to TZS. 134,413,682,281.00 for FY 2007 and 2008. Atlas Tanzania then accounted for VAT on the commission for the years 2007 and 2008 amounting to TZS. 5,692,574,000.00, ... Continue to full case

A / S Norske Shell runs petroleum activities on the Norwegian continental shelf. By the judgment of the Court of Appeal in 2019, it had been decided that there was a basis for a discretionary tax assessment pursuant to section 13-1 of the Tax Act, based on the fact that costs for research and development in Norway should have been distributed among the other group members. According to section 13-1 third paragraph of the Norwegian Tax Act the Norwegian the arms length provisions must take into account OECD’s Transfer pricing guidelines. And according to the Court of Appeal the Petroleum Tax Appeals Board had correctly concluded – based on the fact – that this was a cost contribution arrangement. Hence the income determination then had to be in accordance with what follows from the OECD guidelines for such arrangements (TPG Chapter VIII). The question before ... Continue to full case

“Beltart Manufacturing” is a Bulgarian toll-manufacturer of of clothing accessories – trouser belts etc. – and is a member of the German Beltart Group. The remuneration for the manufactoring services provided to the group for 2013 and 2014 had been lower than for previous years. According to the company this was due to changes to the contractual and economic conditions and discounts. Following an audit the tax authorities came to the conclusion that the remuneration for 2013 and 2014 should be increased to the same level as for the previous years.  According to the tax authorities, the additional income had been determined by application of the CUP method. An appeal was filed by Beltart Manufacturing with the Administrative court, where the assessment was set aside. According to the court the tax authority had  not analyzed the economic situation for the period 2011 and 2012, and then for ... Continue to full case

Gulbrandsen Chemicals manufactures chemicals for industrial customers in the petrochemical and pharmaceutical industry. The Indian Subsidiary, Gulbrandsen India also sold these products to its affiliated enterprises, namely Gulbrandsen Chemicals Inc, USA, and Gulbrandsen EU Limited. In regards of the controlled transactions, the tax authorities noticed that Gulbrandsen India had shifted from use of the internal CUP method to pricing based on the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). The tax authorities were of the view that, given the facts of the case, the internal CUP was the most appropriate method. It was noted that Gulbrandsen India had sold 40% of its products to the associated enterprises, and earned a margin of PBIT/Cost at 2.07%, as against the sale of 70% of its products in the prior year and earning margin of PBIT/Cost at 3.26%. Following a decision of the Tax Tribunal, where the assessment of the ... Continue to full case

A. Sp. z o.o. was established to carry out an investment project consisting in construction of a shopping center. In order to raise funds, the company concluded a loan agreement. The loan agreement was guaranteed by shareholders and other related parties. By virtue of the guarantees, the guarantors became solitarily liable for the Applicant’s obligations. The guarantees were granted free of charge. A. Sp. z o.o. was not obliged to pay any remuneration or provide any other mutual benefit to the guarantors. In connection with the above description, the following questions were asked: (1) Will A. Sp. z o.o. be obliged to prepare transfer pricing documentation in connection with the gratuitous service received, and if so, both for the year in which the surety is granted to the Applicant or also for subsequent tax years during the term of the security? (2) Will A. Sp ... Continue to full case