Category: Disallowed Deduction

France vs SAS Oakley Holding, May 2022, CAA of Lyon, No 19LY03100

France vs SAS Oakley Holding, May 2022, CAA of Lyon, No 19LY03100

SNC Oakley Europe, a subsidiary of SAS Oakley Holding, which belonged to the American group Oakley Inc. until its takeover in 2007 by the Italian group Luxottica, carried on the business of distributing clothing, footwear, eyewear and accessories of the Oakley brand on European territory. Following the takeover SNC Oakley Europe in 2008 transferred its distribution activity on the French market to another French company, Luxottica France, and its distribution activity on the European market to companies incorporated in Ireland, Luxottica Trading and Finance and Oakley Icon, and deducted restructuring costs in an amount of EUR 15,544,267. The tax authorities qualified these costs as an advantage granted without consideration to its sister companies, constituting, on the one hand, an abnormal management act and, on the other hand, an indirect transfer of profits within the meaning of Article 57 of the General Tax Code on the ... Continue to full case
Italy vs Vincenzo Zucchi Spa, May 2022, Supreme Court, Cases No 13718/2022

Italy vs Vincenzo Zucchi Spa, May 2022, Supreme Court, Cases No 13718/2022

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
Norway vs Fortis Petroleum Norway AS, March 2022, Court of Appeal, Case No LB-2021-26379

Norway vs Fortis Petroleum Norway AS, March 2022, Court of Appeal, Case No LB-2021-26379

In 2009-2011 Fortis Petroleum Norway AS (FPN) bought seismic data related to oil exploration in the North Sea from a related party, Petroleum GeoServices AS (PGS), for NKR 95.000.000. FBN paid the amount by way of a convertible intra-group loan from PGS in the same amount. FPN also purchased administrative services from another related party, Consema, and later paid a substantial termination fee when the service contract was terminated. The acquisition costs, interest on the loan, costs for services and termination fees had all been deducted in the taxable income of the company for the years in question. Central to this case is the exploration refund scheme on the Norwegian shelf. This essentially means that exploration companies can demand cash payment of the tax value of exploration costs, cf. the Petroleum Tax Act § 3 letter c) fifth paragraph. If the taxpayer does not have ... Continue to full case
UK vs NCL Investments Ltd, March 2022, UK Supreme Court, Case No [2022] UKSC 9

UK vs NCL Investments Ltd, March 2022, UK Supreme Court, Case No [2022] UKSC 9

The companies NCL Investments Ltd and Smith & Williamson Corporate Services Ltd (the Companies) had granted its employees stock options to acquire shares in the ultimate holding company, Smith & Williamson Holdings Limited (SWHL). The companies employ staff and make those staff available to other companies in the group in return for a fee. That fee is based on the costs that the companies incur in employing the staff, marked up with a profit element. The Companies claimed deductions in the computation taxable profits. The tax authorities accepted that IFRS2 required the Companies to recognise an expense in their income statements equal to the fair value of the options, but held that the debits were inapt to affect the profits of the Companies for corporation tax purposes. These transactions were treated by IFRS2 as a capital contribution (benefit) granted by SWHL to the Companies. The ... Continue to full case
Italy vs BenQ Italy SRL, March 2021, Corte di Cassazione, Sez. 5 Num. 1374 Anno 2022

Italy vs BenQ Italy SRL, March 2021, Corte di Cassazione, Sez. 5 Num. 1374 Anno 2022

BenQ Italy SRL is part of a multinational group headed by the Taiwanese company BenQ Corporation that sells and markets technology products, consumer electronics, computing and communications devices. BenQ Italy’s immediate parent company was a Dutch company, BenQ Europe PV. Following an audit the tax authorities issued a notice of assessment for FY 2003 in which the taxpayer was accused of having procured goods from companies operating in countries with privileged taxation through the fictitious interposition of a Dutch company (BenQ Europe BV), the parent company of the taxpayer, whose intervention in the distribution chain was deemed uneconomic. On the basis of these assumptions, the tax authorities found that the recharge of costs made by the interposed company, were non-deductible. The tax authorities also considered that, through the interposition of BenQ BV, the prices charged by the taxpayer were aimed at transferring most of the ... Continue to full case
Poland vs R. Sp. z o. o., January 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 990/19

Poland vs R. Sp. z o. o., January 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 990/19

R. 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 under an Advance Pricing Agreement. R. Sp. z.o.o brought the issue before the Administrative Court, where a decision in favour of R. Sp. z.o.o. was issued. An appeal was then filed by the tax authorities. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Court dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities. The tax authorities could not refuse to issue a binding ruling/interpretation on whether or not a price paid to a related party under restructuring was tax deductible. According to the Court such a question could not only be dispelled by the issuance of an Advance Pricing Agreement. Click here for English Translation ... Continue to full case
Peru vs. "Mining Corp", December 2021, Tax Court, Case No 11557-1-2021

Peru vs. “Mining Corp”, December 2021, Tax Court, Case No 11557-1-2021

Mining Corp had deducted interest payments on an intra-group syndicated loan of $200.000.000 of which it stated an amount of $94,500,000.00, had been used, that is, a part of the syndicate $200,000,000.00, which was the subject of the loan, had been used to prepay the same loan for $65,000,000.00 and $29,500,000.00. Following an audit the tax authorities issued an assessment where, among other issued, deductions of interest payment on the loan had been adjusted. According to the tax authorities the accounting record of the credit or income from financing or the Cash Flow Statement was not sufficient to support the financial expenditure, especially if this does not demonstrate the movement of the money and its use in acquisitions, payments to third parties and other activities related to the line of business. In order to prove the use of the resources obtained, it was necessary to ... Continue to full case
Spain vs MAHOU (SAN MIGUEL) S.A., December 2021, Audiencia Nacional, Case No SAN 5537/2021 - ECLI:ES:AN:2021:5537

Spain vs MAHOU (SAN MIGUEL) S.A., December 2021, Audiencia Nacional, Case No SAN 5537/2021 – ECLI:ES:AN:2021:5537

The Mahou (SAN MIGUEL) S.A Group is active in brewing and sale of beers. Penibética de cervezas y bebidas SL and Andaluza de cervezas y bebidas SL are wholly owned by Cervezas Alhambra SL, which again is owned by MAHOU (SAN MIGUEL) S.A. The main activity of Cervezas Alhambra SL is the distribution and marketing under its own brands of the beer produced by its subsidiaries; that of Penibética de Cervezas y Bebidas SL is the production of beers which, without its own brand, are mainly distributed and marketed by Alhambra and the core activity of Andaluza de Cervezas y Bebidas S.L. is the manufacture of beers which, without its own brand, are distributed and marketed by Alhambra. In 2014, the tax authorities issued two tax assessments to the group: one in relation to FY 2008 and 2009, in the amount of €12,303,526.50 an another ... Continue to full case
Australia vs Singapore Telecom Australia Investments Pty Ltd, December 2021, Federal Court of Australia, Case No FCA 1597

Australia vs Singapore Telecom Australia Investments Pty Ltd, December 2021, Federal Court of Australia, Case No FCA 1597

Singapore Telecom Australia Investments Pty Ltd entered into a loan note issuance agreement (the LNIA) with a company (the subscriber) that was resident in Singapore. Singapore Telecom Australia and the subscriber were ultimately 100% owned by the same company. The loan notes issued totalled approximately $5.2 billion to the subscriber. The terms of the LNIA was amendet on three occasions – the first amendment and the second amendment were expressed to have effect as from the date when the LNIA was originally entered into. The interest rate under the LNIA as amended by the third amendment was 13.2575% Following an audit the tax authorities issued an amended assessment under the transfer pricing provisions and denied interest deductions totalling approximately $894 million in respect of four years of income. According to the tax authorities the conditions agreed between the parties differed from the arm’s length principle ... Continue to full case
Finland vs D Oy, December 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. KHO:2021:179

Finland vs D Oy, December 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. KHO:2021:179

At issue was whether interest expenses incurred as a result of intra-group liabilities related to the acquisition of shares were tax deductible. In August 2010, the Swedish companies H AB and B AB had agreed, among other things, to sell E Oy’s shares to B AB and to allow B AB to transfer its rights and obligations to purchase the said shares directly or indirectly to its own subsidiary. B AB’s subsidiary had established D Oy in August 2010. In September 2010, before the completion of the acquisition, B AB had transferred its rights and obligations to purchase E Oy’s shares to D Oy. Ownership of E Oy’s shares had been transferred to D Oy at the end of September 2010. D Oy had financed the acquisition of E Oy’s shares mainly with a debt it had taken from B AB, from which D Oy ... Continue to full case
Finland vs G Oy, December 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. KHO:2021:178

Finland vs G Oy, December 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. KHO:2021:178

At issue was whether interest expenses incurred as a result of intra-group liabilities related to the acquisition of shares were tax deductible. In 2005, CA / S, indirectly owned by private equity investors A and B, had purchased a listed share in DA / S. DA / S’s subsidiary EA / S had established H AB in July 2008. On 25 August 2008, EA / S had transferred approximately 83.8 per cent of F Oy’s shares in kind to H AB and sold the remaining approximately 16.2 per cent at the remaining purchase price. On August 26, 2008, EA / S had subscribed for new shares in G Oy and paid the share subscription price in kind, transferring 56 percent of H AB’s shares. On August 27, 2008, G Oy had purchased the remaining 44 percent of H AB’s shares. EA / S had granted ... Continue to full case
Italy vs NEOPOST ITALIA s.r.l. (QUADIENT ITALY s.r.l.), September 2021, Supreme Court, Case No 25025/2021

Italy vs NEOPOST ITALIA s.r.l. (QUADIENT ITALY s.r.l.), September 2021, Supreme Court, Case No 25025/2021

Neopost Italia s.r.l. had paid service fees and royalties to its French parent. Following an audit, deductions for these intra-group transactions was adjusted by the tax authorities due to non compliance with the arm’s length principle and lack of documentation. However, for the purpose of determining an arm’s length remuneration a benchmark study had been performed by the tax authorities in which one of the comparables was not independent. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the tax authorities. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case to the court of first instance. In regards to the comparable company in the benchmark that was not independent, the Supreme Court found that: “it is entirely arbitrary, in comparing the two companies, to assert that the price charged by one of the two ... Continue to full case
Colombia vs Interoil Colombia Exploration and Production S.A., September 2021, The Administrative Court, Case No. 24282

Colombia vs Interoil Colombia Exploration and Production S.A., September 2021, The Administrative Court, Case No. 24282

Interoil Colombia Exploration and Production S.A. paid it foreign parent for cost related to exploration and administrative services, and for tax purposes these costs had been deducted in the taxable income. In total $3,571,353,600 had been declared as operating expenses for geological and geophysical studies carried out in the exploratory phase of an oil project and $5.548.680.347 had been declared for administrative services rendered from its parent company abroad Following an audit the tax authorities issued an assessment where these deductions was denied. In regards of cost related to exploration, these should have been recorded as a deferred charge amortisable over up to five years, according to articles 142 and 143 of the Tax Statute. In accordance with Article 142, these investments are recorded as deferred assets and are also declared for tax purposes. (…) According to the general accounting regulations – Decree 2649 of ... Continue to full case
El Salvador vs Corp, June 2021, Tax Court, Case No 096-2021

El Salvador vs Corp, June 2021, Tax Court, Case No 096-2021

Following an audit the tax authorities issued an assessment regarding interest payments on intra group loans and tax deductions for the costs for various services. An appeal was filed by the company. Judgement of the Tax Court The court upheld the assessment and decided in favour of the tax authorities. Click here for English translation TAIIA-R1704012TM ... Continue to full case
Czech Republic vs. LCN GROUP s.r.o., July 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 2 Afs 148/2020 - 37

Czech Republic vs. LCN GROUP s.r.o., July 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 2 Afs 148/2020 – 37

LCN Group had deducted costs in its taxable income for marketing services provided by related parties – PRESSTEX MEDIA SE and TARDEM Media s.r.o. and PAPILIO. The claimed advertising costs from PRESSTEX in FY 2012 was produced and implemented by PAPILIO and subsequently invoiced to LCN Group, virtually unchanged, at a price 23 times higher than the price of the advertising, without the corresponding value added being justified. In relation to FY 2013, LCN Group claimed advertising costs from TARDEM in a similar pattern where the price was increased by up to 56 times. In both tax periods, LCN Group’s advertising/promotion costs were related to sporting events (gymnastics world cup, tennis tournament and golf tournaments). The tax authorities concluded that the prices agreed between the parties was not at arm’s length and issued an assessment. The Regional Court annulled the assessment. It argued that the ... Continue to full case
Bulgaria vs Central Hydroelectric de Bulgari EOOD, July 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 8331

Bulgaria vs Central Hydroelectric de Bulgari EOOD, July 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 8331

By judgment of 19 January 2021, the Administrative Court upheld an assessment for FY 2012-2017 issued by the tax authorities on the determination of the arm’s length income resulting from related party transactions. The tax assessment resulted from disallowed deductions for Intra group services provided under a general administrative, legal and financial assistance contract of 22 October 2012 Costs invoiced for the preparation of consolidated accounts Expenses related to “Technical services” for which no explanations had been provided An appeal was filed by Central Hydroelectric de Bulgari EOOD with the Supreme Administrative Court in which the company stated that the decision of the Administrative Court was incorrect. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Supreme Administrative Court partially upheld the decision of the Administrative Court. Excerpts “The present Court of Cassation finds the judgment of the ACGC valid and admissible. The argument of the applicant ... Continue to full case
France vs. SARL SRN Métal, May 2021, CAA, Case No. 19NC03729

France vs. SARL SRN Métal, May 2021, CAA, Case No. 19NC03729

SARL SRN Métal’s business is trading in industrial metal and steel products. Following an audit of the company for FY 2011 to 2012 and assessment was issued related to VAT, Transfer Pricing and Withholding Tax. In regards to transfer pricing, the administration considered that (1) the sales of goods made by SRN Métal to B-Lux Steel, established in Luxembourg, were invoiced at a lower price than that charged to the company’s other customers and (2) that commissions paid to Costa Rica – a privileged tax regime – were not deductible as SRN Metal did not provided proof that the expenses corresponded to real operations and that they are not abnormal or exaggerated. The company requested the administrative court of Strasbourg to discharge the assessments. This request was rejected by the court in a judgement issued 29 October 2019. This decision of the administrative court was ... Continue to full case
St. Vincent & the Grenadines vs Unicomer (St. Vincent) Ltd., April 2021, Supreme Court, Case No SVGHCV2019/0001

St. Vincent & the Grenadines vs Unicomer (St. Vincent) Ltd., April 2021, Supreme Court, Case No SVGHCV2019/0001

Unicomer (St. Vincent) Ltd. is engaged in the business of selling household furniture and appliances. In FY 2013 and 2014 Unicomer entered into an “insurance arrangement” involving an unrelated party, United insurance, and a related party, Canterbury. According to the tax authorities United Insurance had been used as an intermediate/conduit to funnel money from the Unicomer to Canterbury, thereby avoiding taxes in St. Vincent. In 2017 the Inland Revenue Department issued an assessments of additional tax in the sum of $12,666,798.23 inclusive of interest and penalties. The basis of the assessment centered on Unicomer’s treatment of (1) credit protection premiums (hereinafter referred to as “CPI”) under the insurance arrangement, (2) tax deferral of hire-purchase profits and (3) deductions for royalty payments. Unicomer appealed the assessment to the Appeal Commission where a decision was rendered in 2018. The Appeal Commission held that the CPI payments were ... Continue to full case
Romania vs A. Romania S.R.L., April 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 2644/2021

Romania vs A. Romania S.R.L., April 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 2644/2021

A. Romania S.R.L. had purchased services from A. Nederland BV and A. CZ Holding sro, and the costs of the services had been deducted for tax purposes. At issue was whether these services had actually been provided to the benefit of A. Romania S.R.L. and if so whether the costs were deductible under Romanian tax provisions. According to the tax authorities it was not possible to identify the services actually provided, as the documentation provided was only general data on the types of services invoiced, such as: group services, taxes and contributions, other group services. No supporting documents had been submitted to show that the services were actually provided. Furthermore, according to Romanian tax provisions – paragraph 41 of H.G. no. 44/2004 – the costs of administration, management, control, consultancy or similar functions are borne by the parent company and no remuneration can be claimed ... Continue to full case
Romania vs S.C. A., March 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 1955/2021

Romania vs S.C. A., March 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 1955/2021

S.C. A. had paid for intra group services in FY 2013 and 2014 and deducted the costs for tax purposes. The purchases of services were made on the basis of a management services contract concluded with related party C. S.A. and a production service contract, logistics service contract, product management service contract and service contract concluded with related party B. The tax authorities had issued an assessment where deductions for the costs had been denied. The court of first instance set aside the tax assessment. Judgement of Supreme Administrative Court The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision from the court of first instance and decided in favor of S.C. A. Excerpts “As regards the necessity of providing the services The High Court finds that the expert held, with regard to that aspect, that by the contracts concluded, C. S.A. and B. undertook to carry out ... Continue to full case
Loading...