Category: Disallowed Deduction

Denmark vs. "C-Advisory Business ApS", November 2022, Supreme Court, Case No BS-22176/2021-HJR

Denmark vs. “C-Advisory Business ApS”, November 2022, Supreme Court, Case No BS-22176/2021-HJR

A was the sole owner of “C-Advisory Business ApS” established in Denmark in 2003. The company advised and represented taxpayers in cases related to tax deductions for land improvements to immovable property. A was also the sole owner of a company established in Dubai in 2006. The Dubai company provided services for “C-Advisory Business ApS” in Denmark and a total of DKK 78,785,549 was expensed in FY 2006-2010 relating to the purchase of these services. The Danish tax authorities considered that the payments had not been at arm’s length and reduced the service fees to the Dubai company to DKK 20 million for the income years in question. This resulted in additional taxable income of “C-Advisory Business ApS” in a total amount of DKK 58,5 million. Following an unsuccessful complaint to the Tax Tribunal, “C-Advisory Business ApS” filed an appeal with the regional court where ... Continue to full case
France vs Yazaki Systems Technologies France, October 2022, CAA de Versailles, Case No. 20VE02286

France vs Yazaki Systems Technologies France, October 2022, CAA de Versailles, Case No. 20VE02286

Yazaki Systems Technologies France (SY France) is wholly owned by the German company SY Systems Technologie Europe GmbH, which became Yazaki Systems Technologie Europe GmbH (SY Europe) in 2013 following the acquisition of 100% of its shares by the Japanese parent company that created the group, Yazaki Corporation Japan. The group develops and distributes wiring harnesses for the automotive industry. SY France was subject to an audit for the years 2012, 2013 and 2014 where the tax authorities denied the deductibility of a compensation of EUR 7,000,000 paid to Renault, which was intended to compensate the latter for the damage suffered as a result of an anti-competitive agreement involving several automotive suppliers, including the Yazaki group. According to the tax authorities SY France’s payment to Renault was made on behalf of the Japanese parent which had negotiated the cartel/anti-competitive agreement. Yazaki France filed an appeal ... Continue to full case
India vs Akzo Nobel India Pvt Ltd, September 2022, High Court of Delhi, ITA 370/2022

India vs Akzo Nobel India Pvt Ltd, September 2022, High Court of Delhi, ITA 370/2022

The tax authorities had disallowed deductions for purported administrative services paid for by Akzo Nobel India to a group company in Singapore. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the assessment in a Judgement issued in February 2022. An appeal was then filed by Akzo Nobel India with the High Court. Judgement of the High Court The High Court dismissed the Appeal of Akzo Nobel India and upheld the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Excerpt “…this Court finds that all the three authorities below have given concurrent findings of fact that the Appellant had failed to furnish evidence to demonstrate that administrative services were actually rendered by the AE and the assessee had received such services. In fact, the ITAT has noted in the impugned order “….On a specific query made by the Bench to demonstrate the receipt of services from AE through cogent ... Continue to full case
Poland vs "H. LVAS Sp. z oo", September 2022, Administrative Court, Case No I SA / Go 234/22

Poland vs “H. LVAS Sp. z oo”, September 2022, Administrative Court, Case No I SA / Go 234/22

“H. LVAS Sp. z oo” had deducted expenses related to intra-group services in its taxable income. The services had been provided by its German parent company, H. GmbH. The services (supervision and management support, coordination of projects, support in accounting, controlling, IT and personnel) had been classified by the group as low value-added services. Following a inspection, the tax authority issued an assessment where these deductions had been denied resulting in additional taxable income. An appeal was filed by H with the Administrative Court. Judgement of the Administrative Court The Court found that the assessment issued by the tax authorities was incorrect and remanded the case for further considerations. Excerpts “Inaccuracies or incompleteness of documentation, and in particular its absence, may result in the necessity to estimate income (cf. the judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court of 22 October 2014, II FSK 2494/12 and of ... Continue to full case
Denmark vs. Codan Forsikring A/S, August 2022, Eastern High Court, Case no BS-11370/2020

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
Greece vs "VAT Ltd.", May 2022, Tax Court, Case No 2074/2022

Greece vs “VAT Ltd.”, May 2022, Tax Court, Case No 2074/2022

This case deals with VAT treatment of disallowed deductions for intra-group services. Following an audit, an adjustment of the taxable income was issued to “VAT Ltd.” by the tax authorities where intra-group services had been disallowed and VAT had been adjusted as a result. “VAT Ltd.” disagreed with the adjustment and filed an appeal. Judgement of the Tax Court The Tax Court upheld the assessment of the tax authorities. Click here for English translation gr-ded-ath-2074_2022 ... Continue to full case
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
Poland vs D. Sp. z oo, April 2022, Administrative Court, Case No I SA/Bd 128/22

Poland vs D. Sp. z oo, April 2022, Administrative Court, Case No I SA/Bd 128/22

D. Sp. z oo had deducted interest expenses on intra-group loans and expenses related to intra-group services in its taxable income for FY 2015. The loans and services had been provided by a related party in Delaware, USA. Following a inspection, the tax authority issued an assessment where deductions for these costs had been denied resulting in additional taxable income. In regards to the interest expenses the authority held that the circumstances of the transactions indicated that they were made primarily in order to achieve a tax advantage contrary to the object and purpose of the Tax Act (reduction of the tax base by creating a tax cost in the form of interest on loans to finance the purchase of own assets), and the modus operandi of the participating entities was artificial, since under normal trading conditions economic operators, guided primarily by economic objectives and ... Continue to full case
Japan vs Universal Music Corp, April 2022, Supreme Court, Case No 令和2(行ヒ)303

Japan vs Universal Music Corp, April 2022, Supreme Court, Case No 令和2(行ヒ)303

An intercompany loan in the form of a so-called international debt pushdown had been issued to Universal Music Japan to acquire the shares of another Japanese group company. The tax authority found that the loan transaction had been entered for the principal purpose of reducing the tax burden in Japan and issued an assessment where deductions of the interest payments on the loan had been disallowed for tax purposes. The Tokyo District Court decided in favour of Universal Music Japan and set aside the assessment. The Court held that the loan did not have the principle purpose of reducing taxes because the overall restructuring was conducted for valid business purposes. Therefore, the tax authorities could not invoke the Japanese anti-avoidance provisions to deny the interest deductions. In 2020 the decision of the district court was upheld by the Tokyo High Court. The tax authorities then ... 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
Portugal vs "A S.A.", March 2022, CAAD - Administrative Tribunal, Case No : 213/2021-T

Portugal vs “A S.A.”, March 2022, CAAD – Administrative Tribunal, Case No : 213/2021-T

A S.A. is 51% owned by B SA and 49% by C Corp. A S.A is active in development of energy efficiency projects. In 2015 A S.A took out loans from B and C at an annual interest rate of 3.22xEuribor 12 months, plus a spread of 14%. A S.A had also paid for services to related party D. The tax authorities issued an assessment related to the interest rate on the loan and the service purportedly received and paid for. A complaint was filed by A S.A. with the Administrative Tribunal (CAAD). Judgement of the CAAD The complaint of A S.A was dismissed and the assessment upheld. Excerpts regarding the interest rate “Now, regarding the first argument, it falls immediately by the base, since the Applicant has not proved that it had made any effort to finance itself with the bank and that this ... 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
Portugal vs "A SGPS S.A.", March 2022, CAAD - Administrative Tribunal, Case No : P590_2020-T

Portugal vs “A SGPS S.A.”, March 2022, CAAD – Administrative Tribunal, Case No : P590_2020-T

A SGPS S.A. is the parent company of Group A. In 2016, a subsidiary, B S.A., took a loan in a bank, amounting to 1,950,000.00 Euros, and incurred interest costs and Stamp Tax. However, the majority of the loan, an amount of €1,716,256.60, was transferred as an interest free loan to A SGPS S.A. The tax authorities issued an assessment related to costs incurred on the loan and deducted by B S.A. The tax authorities disallowed B S.A.’s deduction of the costs as they were not intended to protect or obtain income, and therefore did not meet the requirements for deductibility under the general provisions of the Tax Code; A complaint was filed by A SGPS S.A. with the Administrative Tribunal. According to A SGPS SA the tax authorities did not justify why it considered that the expenses incurred by B S.A. to an independent ... Continue to full case
India vs Akzo Nobel India Pvt Ltd, February 2022, ITAT Delhi, ITA No. 6007/Del/2014

India vs Akzo Nobel India Pvt Ltd, February 2022, ITAT Delhi, ITA No. 6007/Del/2014

Akzo Nobel India Pvt – a subsidiary of Akzo Nobel Coatings International BV – had paid for administrative services purportedly rendered form a group company in Singapore and had claimed a deduction of INR 19,465 250. The price paid for these services had been determined by the group on an aggregate basis using the transactional net margin method to establish that all controlled transactions in Akzo Nobel India had been at arm’s length. During the audit, the tax authority requested Akzo Nobel India to justify the arm’s length nature of the payment for these administrative services. To that end Akzo Nobel India submitted a copy of the agreement and the allocations keys used. Akzo Nobel India also submitted that the group company in Singapore had provided administrative support services like supply chain management support, marketing and commercial service support, commercial vehicle support, automotive after-market support, ... 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
Zimbabwe vs Delta Beverages Ltd., Supreme Court, Judgement No. SC 3/22

Zimbabwe vs Delta Beverages Ltd., Supreme Court, Judgement No. SC 3/22

Delta Beverages Ltd, a subsidiary of Delta Corporation, had been issued a tax assessment for FY 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 where various fees for service, technology license of trademarks, technology and know-how paid to a group company in the Netherlands (SAB Miller Management BV) had been disallowed by the tax authorities (Zimra) of Zimbabwe resulting in additional taxes of US$42 million which was later reduced to US$30 million. An appeal was filed with the Special Court (for Income Tax Appeals) where, in a judgment dated 11 October 2019, parts of the assessment was set aside. Not satisfied with the result, an appeal (Delta Beverages) and cross-appeal (tax authorities) was filed with the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set aside the judgement of the Special Court (for Income Tax Appeals) and remanded the case for reconsiderations in relation ... 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