Menu +

Category: Burden of Proof

The legal issue of whether the burden of proof for arm’s length pricing of controlled transactions rests with the tax authorities or the taxpayer.

In most jurisdictions, the tax administration bears the burden of proof both in its own internal dealings with the taxpayer (e.g. assessment and appeals) and in litigation. In some of these countries, the burden of proof can be reversed, allowing the tax administration to estimate taxable income, if the taxpayer is found not to have acted in good faith, for example, by not cooperating or complying with reasonable documentation requests or by filing false or misleading returns. In other countries, the burden of proof rests on the taxpayer.

South Africa vs Crookes Brothers LTD, May 2018, High Court, Case no 14179/2017

In this case, agricultural group Crookes Brothers Ltd issued loans to its Mozambican subsidiary and in accordance with the terms of the loan, the group made transfer pricing adjustments to its taxable income. Later on, Crookes Brothers Ltd requested the tax administration to issue a reduced assessments, claiming that the adjustments were made in error. They argued, that the terms of the loan were aligned with the requirements of section 31(7) of the Income Tax […]

Israel vs Kontera and Finisar, April 2018, Supreme Court

In these two cases from Israel the Supreme Court rules on the issue of whether or not companies using the cost plus method must include stock-based compensation in the cost base. The Court concludes that stock-based compensation is an integral part of the compensation package of the Israeli subsidiaries’ employees with the objective of improving the quality of services rendered and strengthening the bond between the companies’ and employees’ cohesive goals. Therefore, such compensation should […]

Denmark vs Microsoft Denmark, March 2018, Danish National Court, SKM2018.416.ØLR

The Danish Tax Ministry and Microsoft meet in Court in a case where the Danish tax authorities had issued an assessment of DKK 308 million. The Danish tax authorities were of the opinion that Microsoft had not been properly remunerated for performing marketing activities due to the fact that OEM sales to Danish customers via MNE OEM’s had not been included in the calculation of local commissions. In court, Microsoft required a dismissal with reference […]

Denmark vs. Corp, December 2016, Tax Tribunal, SKM2017.115

The case relates to controlled transactions between a Danish company and its permanent establishment, as well as the calculation of taxable income of the permanent establishment. The Danish Tax Administration was entitled to make tax assessment in accordance with applicable Tax Law. The transfer pricing-documentation provided by the Company lacked a comparability analysis. The assessment was in line with the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, but some corrections to the tax assessment were made. Share:

Germany vs. Corp. September 2016, Supreme Tax Court IV R 1 14

Tax depreciation for wind turbines presupposes economic ownership of the asset. A change in economic ownership requires that any risks are transferred to the purchaser/customer. The German Supreme Tax Court held that economic ownership of an asset is not transferred at the time it generates income but rather when the risk of accidental destruction and accidental deterioration of the asset passes to the buyer. The contractual agreements to that effect are crucial. A German partnership (KG) […]

Italy vs Edison s.p.a. April 2016, Supreme Court no 7493

In this case is about inter-group funding. The Italien company had qualified a funding arrangement as a non-interest-bearing contribution for future capital increase, hence part of Net Equity. The Italian Supreme Court found that intra-group financing agreements are subject to transfer pricing legislation and that non-interest-bearing financing is generally not consistent with the arm’s-length principle. Share:

Australia vs. Chevron Australia Holdings Pty Ltd . October 2015, Federal Court of Australia, case No. 3 and 4

The Australien Chevron case was about a $US 2.5 billion intercompany loan between Chevron Australia and its US subsidiary, Chevron Texaco, and whether the interest paid on the loan by Chevron Australia exceeded the arm’s length price. Chevron Australia had set up a company in the US, Chevron Texaco Funding Corporation, which borrowed money in US dollars at an interest rate of 1.2% and then made an Australian dollar loan at 8.9% to the Australian parent company. This 8,9% interest increased […]

Norway vs. Total E&P Norge AS, October 2015, Supreme Court 2014/498, ref no. HR-2015-00699-A

Total E&P Norge AS (Total) is engaged in petroleum exploration and production activities on the Norwegian Continental Shelf. Income from such activities is subject to a special petroleum tax, in addition to the normal corporate tax, resulting in a total nominal tax rate of 78%. In 2002-2007, Total sold gas to the controlled trading companies, and the trading companies resold the gas to third parties on the open market. The Supreme Court concluded that Total […]

Next Page »