Category: Benchmark, Range and Median
In transfer pricing arm’s length prices are often determined based on benchmark studies. These studies produces a range of figures. In some cases, not all comparable transactions will have a relatively equal degree of comparability. Where every effort has been made to exclude points that have a lesser degree of comparability, it may still be the case, that what is arrived at is a range of figures for which comparability defects remain that cannot be identified and/or quantified.
Substantial deviation among points in that range may indicate that the data used in establishing some of the points may not be as reliable as the data used to establish the other points in the range.
In such cases, if the range includes a sizeable number of observations, statistical tools (e.g. the interquartile range or other percentiles) can enhance the reliability of the analysis. It may also be appropriate to use measures of central tendency (for instance the median, the mean or weighted averages) to determine the arm’s length price applied, in order to minimise the effect of unknown or unquantifiable remaining comparability defects.
See on this issue, TPG 2017, para 3.55 – 3.62
Kazakhstan vs “KOR Oil Company”, January 2023, Supreme Court, No. 6001-22-00-6ап/1563
The tax authority had conducted a tax audit of “KOR Oil Company” on transfer pricing issues for FY 2013-2015. Based on the results of the audit, a notice was issued on corporate income tax in the amount of 138 515 235 and penalties in the amount 34 807 179. In the decision the tax authorities had based the pricing of the controlled oil transactions on market data provided by Argus China Petroleum, whereas the company had based the pricing on Brent quotation. On appeal, the assessment of additional tax was later canceled by the tax court and the court of appeal. In an appeal to the Supreme Court the tax authorities asked the court to cancel the the decision of tax court and the court of appeal. The tax authorities does not “…agree that the Argus China Petroleum source used by the Department does not ... Continue to full case
Czech Republic vs ARGO-HYTOS s.r.o., January 2023, Supreme Administrative Court, No. 2 Afs 66/2021 – 57
Following an audit the tax authorities concluded that ARGO-HYTOS s.r.o. sold goods (valves, blocks and hydraulic aggregates) to related parties at a price that differed from the prices that would have been agreed between unrelated parties under the same or similar conditions. Furthermore, according to the tax authorities ARGO-HYTOS s.r.o. did not satisfactorily document the difference from those normal prices. An appeal was filed by ARGO-HYTOS s.r.o. with the Regional Court which was dismissed the action by the above-quoted judgment No 30 Af 21/2019-46 (‘the contested judgment’). In the judgement, the Regional Court concluded that ARGO-HYTOS s.r.o. had not satisfactorily demonstrated the difference between the prices agreed between it and the companies of the ARGO-HYTOS group and the prices which would have been agreed between unrelated parties under the same or similar conditions. The Regional Court held that, if the tax authorities wished to justify ... Continue to full case
Czech Republic vs. Eli Lilly ČR, s.r.o., December 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, No. 7 Afs 279/2021 – 65
Eli Lilly ČR imports pharmaceutical products purchased from Eli Lilly Export S.A. (Swiss sales and marketing hub) into the Czech Republic and Slovakia and distributes them to local distributors. The arrangement between the local company and Eli Lilly Export S.A. is based on a Service Contract in which Eli Lilly ČR is named as the service provider to Eli Lilly Export S.A. (the principal). Eli Lilly ČR was selling the products at a lower price than the price it purchased them for from Eli Lilly Export S.A. According to the company this was due to local price controls of pharmaceuticals. At the same time, Eli Lilly ČR was also paid for providing marketing services by the Swiss HQ, which ensured that Eli Lilly ČR was profitable, despite selling the products at a loss. Eli Lilly ČR reported the marketing services as a provision of services ... Continue to full case
Poland vs C. spółka z o.o. , November 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 974/22
C. spółka z o.o. is part of a larger group and mainly (95%) sells products (boxes, metal enclosures, etc.) and related services to related parties. According to its transfer pricing documentation the “cost-plus” method had been used to determine the prices of products sold to related parties. The company was audited for FY 2016. According to the tax authorities, the company did not provide enough evidence to support the cost-plus method. The tax authority instead used the transactional net profit method to estimate the company’s income for the year 2016, taking into account factors such as characteristics of goods or services, functional analysis, contractual conditions, economic conditions, and economic strategy by comparing the company’s performance with similar companies over a 3 year period by using EBIT margin. As a result, the authority adjusted the company’s loss and established income based on a EBIT margin of ... Continue to full case
Hungary vs “Gas-Trader KtF”, November 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, Case no Kfv.I.35.343/2022/8
“Gas-Trader KtF” – a subsidiary in the E.ON group – had entered into loan agreements with other group companies and the related parties had determined the interest rate by application of the CUP method using the Thomson Reuters LoanConnector database. Comparable transactions was extracted from the database by searching for credit rating, type of debtor party, date of loan, maturity, transactions with completed status, and spread/provision fee. An audit was conducted by the tax authorities for FY 2012-2013 and the interest rate determined by the group was found to be incompliant with the arm’s length principle. The tax authorities applied the same method as Gas-Trader but added further search criteria in the selection of comparable transactions – credit purpose and insurance coverage. This resulted in a different range and an assessment of additional taxable income was issued. An appeal was filed by Gas-Trader KtF with ... Continue to full case
India vs Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., September 2022, High Court of Delhi, Case No ITA 313/2022
Amway India is engaged in the business of direct selling of consumer products through multi-level marketing. For FY 2013-2014 Amway paid royalties to a foreign Amway group company. Following an audit, an assessment was issued by the tax authorities where the royalty had been reduced based on a benchmark study resulting in additional taxable income. An appeal was filed by Amway India with the Income Tax Tribunal where the assessment was set aside. An appeal was then filed by the tax authorities with the High Court. In the appeal the tax authorities stated that the Tribunal had failed to appreciate the fact that the royalty payments were excessive considering the Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion (‘AMP’) expenses incurred by Amway India for the benefit of the group’s trademark and brand. According to the tax authorities Amway India created marketing intangibles for the group and should be ... Continue to full case
Denmark vs. Codan Forsikring A/S, August 2022, Eastern High Court, Case no BS-11370/2020
This case concerns pricing of four reinsurance agreements concluded between Codan Forsikring A/S (Codan) and a controlled Irish company, RSA Reinsurance Ireland Ltd. for FY 2010-2013. The tax authorities had increased Codan’s taxable income for FY 2010, 2011 and 2012 by DKK 23 million, DKK 25 million, and DKK 18 million and reduced the taxable income for FY 2013 by DKK 4 million. At issue was whether the expenses incurred by Codan under the reinsurance agreements with RSA Ireland were commercially justified and thus deductible. If so, there were questions as to whether the reinsurance agreements had been concluded at arm’s length. By decision of 26 June 2019 the Tax Court reduced the assessment to DKK 0 for the 2010-2012 tax years and upheld Codan’s taxable income for FY 2013. An appeal was filed by the tax authorities. Judgement of the Eastern High Court The ... Continue to full case
India vs Sulzer Tech India Pvt Ltd, July 2022, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Case No ITAT No 633-MUM-2021
Sulzer Tech India Pvt Ltd (the assessee) is in the business of providing design and engineering services. To that end Sulzer Management AG, an associated enterprise provided various IT and support services to Sulzer Tech India. The payment for these services had been determined based on a benchmark study where Sulzer Management AG was chosen as the tested party. The cost plus margin for the selected comparables ranged from 4.08% to 7.08%, with a median of 5.69%, and on that basis the payment to Sulzer Management of Rs. 2,52,49,650, which was equal to cost plus 5%, was considered to be at arm’s length. The tax authorities disagreed and held that Sulzer Tech India at arm’s length would not have paid any amount toward services which are not availed to it and have not benefited its business. Accordingly, an adjustment of additional income of Rs. 2,52,49,650, ... Continue to full case
Greece vs “Clothing Distributor Ltd.”, June 2022, Tax Court, Case No 2400/2022
Following an audit, the Greek tax authorities determined that the remuneration of a Greek Clothing Distributor had not been determined in accordance with the arm’s length principle. On that basis an upwards adjustment of the taxable income was issued. An appeal was filed by “Clothing Distributor Ltd.” Judgement of the Court The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the assessment issued by the tax authorities. “the findings of the audit, as recorded in the partial income tax audit report of 29/12/2021 of the C.E.M.E.P., on which the contested act is based, are considered valid, acceptable and fully justified” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ... Continue to full case
Ukrain vs PrJSC “Poltava GZK”, June 2022, Supreme Court, Case No 440/1053/19
Poltova GZK is a Ukrainian subsidiary of the Ferrexpo group – the world’s third largest exporter of iron ore pellets. In FY 2015 the iron ore mined in Ukraine by Poltava GZK was sold to other companies in the group – Ferrexpo Middle East FZE, and the transfer prices for the ore was determined by application of the CUP method using Platts quotations. However, according to the tax authorities Poltava GZK used Platts quotations for pellets with a lower iron content when pricing the higher quality pellets, resulting in non arm’s length prices for the controlled transactions and lower profits in the Ukraine subsidiary. The tax authorities also found that Poltava GZK had overestimated the cost of freight – in the case of actual transportation of pellets by ships of different classes (“Panamax”, “Capesize”), the adjustment of the delivery conditions was carried out only at ... Continue to full case
Poland vs C. spółka z o.o. , June 2022, Administrative Court, Case No I SA/Go 103/22
C. spółka z o.o. is part of a larger group and mainly (95%) sells products (metal containers) and related services to related parties. According to its transfer pricing documentation the “cost-plus” method had been used to determine the prices of products sold to related parties. The company was audited for FY 2016. According to the tax authorities, the company did not provide enough evidence to support the cost-plus method. The tax authority instead used the transactional net profit method to estimate the company’s income for the year 2016, taking into account factors such as characteristics of goods or services, functional analysis, contractual conditions, economic conditions, and economic strategy by comparing the company’s performance with similar companies over a 3 year period by using EBIT margin. As a result, the authority adjusted the company’s loss and established income based on a EBIT margin of 3.66%, resulting ... Continue to full case
Korea vs “Semicon-sales”, June 2022, Tax Court, Case No 2020-서-2311
A Korean subsidiary (“Semicon-sales”) of a foreign group was active in distribution and sales of semiconductors for the automotive and industrial industry. Following an audit, the tax authorities found that the subsidiary had purchased semiconductors from a foreign affiliated company at a higher price than the arm’s length price. An assessment was issued where the the sum of the difference between the arm’s length price and the reported price had been included in the taxable income for FY 2015-2018. Both “Semicon-sales” and the tax authorities had applied the TNMM to find the arm’s length price, but the tax authorities had rejected the comparables selected by “Semicon” and replaced them with others. Not satisfied with the assessment “Semicon-sales” filed an appeal. Judgement of the Court The court remanded the case with an order to exclude from the benchmark comparables where the sales volume is significantly different ... Continue to full case
Romania vs “A. Median S.R.L.”, May 2022, High Court, Case No 2946/2022
In this case “A. Median S.R.L.” had appealed a decision of the court of first instance where the income had been determined to the median value. According to the company the median is not the only value corresponding to the market value, when both the lower limit and the upper limit of the range of comparison in turn reflect the market value of the goods or services supplied. The provisions of Article 2.7 of the Guidelines were relied on in that regard. “…the assessment must be made in a manner which does not contravene Article 2.7 of the OECD Guidelines, that is to say, does not lead to overtaxation. However, given that the court of first instance assumed that the only value which may be taken into account in determining the transfer price is the median value, any other value within the margin established is ... Continue to full case
Italy vs Promgas s.p.a., May 2022, Supreme Court, Cases No 15668/2022
Promgas s.p.a. is 50% owned by the Italian company Eni s.p.a. and 50% owned by the Russian company Gazprom Export. It deals with the purchase and sale of natural gas of Russian origin destined for the Italian market. It sells the gas to a single Italian entity not belonging to the group, Edison spa, on the basis of a contract signed on 24 January 2000. In essence, Promgas s.p.a. performes intermediary function between the Russian company, Gazprom Export (exporter of the gas), and the Italian company, Edison s.p.a. (final purchaser of the gas). Following an audit for FY 2005/06, the tax authorities – based on the Transaction Net Margin Method – held that the operating margin obtained by Promgas s.p.a. (0.23% in 2025 and 0.06% in 2006) were not in line with the results that the company could have achieved at arm’s length. Applying an ... Continue to full case
Netherlands vs “Fertilizer BV”, April 2022, Court of Appeal, Case No. ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2022:1198
In 2016 Fertilizer BV had been issued a tax assessment for FY 2012 in which the tax authorities had imposed additional taxable income of €133,076,615. In November 2019 the district court ruled predominantly in favor of the tax authorities but reduced the adjustment to €78.294.312. An appel was filed by Fertilizer BV with the Court of Appeal. Judgement of the Court of Appeal Various issues related to the assessment was disputed before the Court. Dispute 1: Allocation of debt and equity capital to a permanent establishment in Libya in connection with the application of the object exemption. More specifically, the dispute is whether the creditworthiness of the head office was correctly taken as a starting point and a sufficient adjustment was made for the increased risk profile of the permanent establishment. The Court of Appeal answered this question in the affirmative, referring to the capital ... Continue to full case
Bulgaria vs Rubbertek Bulgaria EOOD, April 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 3453
By judgment of 22 May 2020, the Administrative Court upheld the complaint filed by “Rubbertek Bulgaria” and set aside an assessment for FY 2015-2016 issued by the tax authorities on the determination of the arm’s length income resulting from related party transactions. According to the Administrative court, the tax assessment was unfounded and unsubstantiated. An appeal was filed by the tax authorities with the Supreme Administrative Court in which the authorities stated that the decision of the Administrative Court was incorrect. The court erred in finding that the decision of the tax authorities referred to other comparable companies than those in Rubbertek Bulgaria’s documentation. Furthermore, the court uncritically accepted Rubbertek Bulgaria’s claim that the reason for the deviation of the declared income from the median for 2015 and 2016 was a relocation of assets from the German company to the Bulgarian company. Judgement of the ... Continue to full case
Spain vs Delsey España S.A, February 2022, Tribunal Superior de Justicia, Case No 483/2022 (Roj: STSJ CAT 1467/2022 – ECLI:ES:TSJCAT:2022:1467)
DELSEY España distributes and sells suitcases and other travel accessories of the DESLEY brand on the Spanish market and belongs to the French multinational group of the same name. The Spanish distributor had declared losses for FY 2005-2010 and was subject to a transfer pricing audit for FY 2011 to 2014. Based on the audit, the tax authorities concluded that the losses in FY 2005-2010 was a result of controlled transactions not being priced at arm’s length. The same was concluded for FY 2011 and 2012. The CUP method and RPM method applied by the taxpayer was found to be inappropriate and was replaced with the TNMM by the tax authorities. An appeal was filed by Delsey España S.A. Judgement of the Court The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the assessment. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ... Continue to full case
Italy vs Burckert Contromatic Italiana S.p.A., November 2021, Corte di Cassazione, Sez. 5 Num. 1417 Anno 2022
Burkert Contromatic Italiana s.p.a. is engaged in sale and services of fluid control systems. The italian company is a subsidiary of the German Bürkert Group. Following a tax audit, the Italian tax authorities issued a notice of assessment for FY 2007 on the grounds that the cost resulting from the transactions with its parent company (incorporated under Swiss law) were higher than the arms length price of these transactions. The company challenged the tax assessment, arguing that the analysis carried out by the Office had been superficial, both because it had examined accounting documents relating to tax years other than the one under examination (2007), and because the Office, in confirming that the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) was the most reliable method, in order to verify whether the margin obtained by the company corresponded to the arm’s length value, had carried out a comparability ... Continue to full case
Greece vs “Marine Fuel Ltd”, January 2022, Dispute Settlement Board, Case No 36/2022
“Marine Fuel Ltd” was audited for FY 2015 and an assessment was issued by the tax authorities, where the taxable income had been increased due to a transfer pricing adjustment. The tax authorities had dismissed the CUP method chosen by the group and instead applied the transactional net margin method (TNMM). Not satisfied with the adjustment, a complaint was filed by “Marine Fuel Ltd” with the Dispute Settlement Board. Judgement of the Board The Board dismissed the complaint of “Marine Fuel Ltd” and upheld the assessment issued by the tax authorities. Excerpts “As some separate transactions carried out between associated enterprises may need to be assessed as a single transaction in order to determine whether the arm’s length principle is respected, other transactions between these enterprises that were invoiced as a package may need to be assessed separately. A group may combine a package of ... Continue to full case
Panama vs “Construction S.A.”, December 2021, Administrative Tax Court, Case No TAT- RF-111 (112/2019)
“Construction Service S.A.” is active in Design, Repair and Construction of buildings. During the FY 2011-2013 it paid for services – management services and construction services – rendered from related parties. Following an audit the tax authorities issued an assessment where payments for these services had been adjusted by reference to the arm’s length principle. According to the authorities the benchmark studies in the company’s transfer pricing documentation suffered from comparability defects and moreover it had not been sufficiently demonstrated that the services had been effectively provided. The tax authorities pointed out that since the company is not considered comparable to the taxpayer, the interquartile range would be from 5.15% to 8.30% with a median of 5.70%; therefore, the taxpayer’s operating margin of 4.07% is outside the interquartile range. Not satisfied with the adjustment “Construction Service S.A.” filed an appeal with the Tax Court Judgement ... Continue to full case
