Category: Legality – Legitimacy – Constitutional

Canada vs Bank of Nova Scotia, October 2021, Tax Court, Case No. 2021 TCC 70

Canada vs Bank of Nova Scotia, October 2021, Tax Court, Case No. 2021 TCC 70

In 2013 and 2014, the Canadian tax authorities conducted the Transfer Pricing Audit of Bank of Nova Scotia. Prior to issuing tax assessment letters for FY 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, the Bank entered into a settlement agreement with the Minister of National Revenue in respect of the Transfer Pricing Audit. The settlement agreement provided for the Minister to reassess the Bank to include certain amounts in its income as transfer pricing adjustments in its 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Taxation Years. In this regard, the agreement was to result in an increase of the Bank’s taxable income for the 2006 Taxation Year of $54,916,616. The Bank then wrote to the Minister to carry back $54,000,000 of non-capital loss that arose in the Bank’s taxation year ended October 31, 2008 to its 2006 Taxation Year in order to offset the ... Continue to full case
Spain vs Comeresa Prensa S.L.U., September 2021, Audiencia Nacional, Case No SAN 3857/2021 - ECLI:ES:AN:2021:3857

Spain vs Comeresa Prensa S.L.U., September 2021, Audiencia Nacional, Case No SAN 3857/2021 – ECLI:ES:AN:2021:3857

VOCENTO, S.A. is the parent company of a multinational publishing group. The registered office of VOCENTO, S.A. is in Bizkaia and it is subject to the regulations of this Territory regarding Corporate Income Tax. COMERESA PRENSA, S.L.U. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of VOCENTO and holds most of the shares in regional press publishing companies held by the Group of which VOCENTO, S.A. is the parent company, with the exception of the publishing companies with registered offices in the territories of the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country. In 2015, COMERESA PRENSA, S.L.U. was issued a tax assessment related to pricing of intra-group services. According to the tax authorities Comeresa Prensa had provided certain services to its parent companies -directly and indirectly- for no consideration whatsoever. Judgement of the Audiencia Nacional The decision of the tax authorities was set aside on formal grounds. “It is appropriate ... Continue to full case
Poland vs R.B.P. (P.) Sp. z o.o.., August 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 3830/18

Poland vs R.B.P. (P.) Sp. z o.o.., August 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 3830/18

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
Netherlands vs "Related Party B.V.", July 2021, District Court, Case No ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2021:3382

Netherlands vs “Related Party B.V.”, July 2021, District Court, Case No ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2021:3382

In 2013 “Related Party B.V” entered into an agreement with “X BV” for the provision of transportation- and support services. The Dutch tax authority suspected that the parties were affiliated within the meaning of Section 8b of the Corporate Income Tax Act 1969. Decision of Court The Court decided in favor of the tax authority. Based on the documents in the case, the tax authority rightly suspected that there was an affiliation within the meaning of Section 8b of the Corporate Income Tax Act. The tax authority was therefore entitled to reasonably issue information decisions for the Vpb for 2013 to 2016 inclusive. Nemo Tenetur Principle – self incrimination “Related Party B.V” argued that it’s right not to incriminate itself had been violated because the information decision(s) had been issued to examine the possibility of imposing a fine. In this regard, the court observed that ... Continue to full case
Italy vs TMC Italia SpA, June 2021, Supreme Court, Case No 18436/2021

Italy vs TMC Italia SpA, June 2021, Supreme Court, Case No 18436/2021

TMC Italy SpA is a parent company which provides services and support to the commercial production activities of its affiliated companies based in foreign countries (Spain, Czech Republic, Germany, France, Israel, Brazil, United Kingdom). The costs of providing these intra-group services had been allocated between the related parties based on the number and salary of employees in FY 2008 and 2009. The tax administration issued an assessment where the allocation was instead be based on turnover – due to data supporting better correlation. The Court of first instance held in favour of the tax authorities. This decision was appealed by TMC to the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Court The Court dismissed the appeal of TMC in its entirety and decided in favour of the tax authorities. Excerpts: “CTR considered legitimate and correct the use of the method of allocation of the profits of the ... Continue to full case
Russia vs PJSC Vimpelcom-Communications, May 2021, Arbitration Court of Moscow, Case No. A40-36350/21-140-1024

Russia vs PJSC Vimpelcom-Communications, May 2021, Arbitration Court of Moscow, Case No. A40-36350/21-140-1024

PJSC Vimpelcom-Communications submitted to the tax authority a revised notice of controlled transactions for 2017, under which contract numbers for 68 transactions were adjusted, including an agreement with a foreign counterparty Veon Wholensale Services B.V. (Netherlands) for the provision of agency-services (the “Controlled Transactions”), and information was also provided on another transaction with another foreign counterparty. Based on the revised notification, the Russian Tax Authorities issued a decision on 29 December 2020 to conduct an audit with respect to pricing of the Company’s Controlled Transactions for 2017. The Company held that the tax authority’s decision as unlawful. The Company insisted that the Russian Tax Authorities had missed the two-year deadline for issuing a decision on the appointment of an audit, and therefore lost its right to conduct a price audit in respect of the 2017-transactions in question. Judgement of the Arbitration Court The court dismissed ... Continue to full case
Germany vs A... GmbH, March 2021, BUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHT, Case No 2 BvR 1161/19

Germany vs A… GmbH, March 2021, BUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHT, Case No 2 BvR 1161/19

A GmbH provided funding in the form of a clearing account to its Belgian subsidiary. The account was unsecured and carried an interest of 6% p.a. In 2005, A GmbH and the Belgian company agreed on a debt write-off which was deducted for tax purposes. The tax authorities issued an assessment where the write-off was denied as a tax deductible expense. According to the tax authorities, independent third parties would have agreed on some kind of security. The lack thereof was a violation of the arm’s length principle. A GmbH brought the assessment to court. The Federal Fiscal Court (I R 73/16) found the assessment of the tax authorities to be lawful. This decision was then appealed to the Constitutional Court by  A GmbH, alleging violation of the general principle of equality as well as a violation of its fundamental procedural right to the lawful ... Continue to full case
Peru vs. Telefonica, February 2021, Supreme Court, Case No 210/2021

Peru vs. Telefonica, February 2021, Supreme Court, Case No 210/2021

Telefónica have been in a long lasting tax dispute with SUNAT – the Peruvian tax authorities – over various tax and transfer pricing issues, and interest on tax debt has been accumulating. Telefonica requests the non-application of article 33 of the Tax Code with regard to the late payment interest on the tax debt related to income tax for the years 2000 and 2001, with respect to the periods that exceed the deadlines set forth in articles 142, 150 and 156 of the aforementioned code. Judgement of the Constitutional Court In this Judgement, the Constitutional Court declares Telefónica’s claim for violation of the right to reasonable time and ORDERS the recalculation of the default interest without considering those generated in excess of the legal time limit established to resolve the dispute. Although the purpose of late payment interest is to encourage the payment of taxes, ... Continue to full case
Belgium vs ENGIE CC cv, January 2021, Supreme Court, Case No F.18.0140.N

Belgium vs ENGIE CC cv, January 2021, Supreme Court, Case No F.18.0140.N

ENGIE CC granted a loan to one of its group companies (Electrabel Nederland Holding bv). In 2005 Electrabel Holding bv repaid the loan prematurely and paid – as contractually stipulated – a reinvestment fee of EUR 5,611,906.11 to the plaintiff. Following a tax audit in 2008, the tax authorities established that an incorrect interest rate had been used and that the reinvestment fee should only have been EUR 2,853,070.69, hence EUR 2,758,835.42 was overpaid. The tax authorities issued an assessment to ENGIE, according to which the excess amount would be taxed as an abnormal or gratuitous advantage. ENGIE then took the unilateral initiative to repay the excess amount to Electrabel Nederland Holding bv. On that basis ENGIE contested the qualification of the excessive part of the reinvestment fee as an abnormal or gratuitous advantage, since it would have been an error and therefore an undue payment ... Continue to full case
South Africa vs ABC (PTY) LTD, January 2021, Tax Court of Johannesburg, Case No IT 14305

South Africa vs ABC (PTY) LTD, January 2021, Tax Court of Johannesburg, Case No IT 14305

ABC Ltd is in the business of manufacturing, importing, and selling chemical products. It has a catalyst division that is focused on manufacturing and selling catalytic converters (catalysts) which is used in the abatement of harmful exhaust emissions from motor vehicles. To produce the catalysts, applicant requires, inter alia, some metals known as the Precious Group of Metals (PGMs). It purchases the PGMs from a Swiss entity (“the Swiss Entity”). The PGMs are liquified and mixed with other chemicals to create coating for substrates, all being part of the manufacturing process. Once the manufacturing is complete, the catalysts are sold to customers in South Africa known as the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). ABC Ltd and the Swiss Entity are connected parties as defined in section 1 of the ITA. Following an audit carried out in 2014 the revenue service issued an assessment for FY 2011 ... Continue to full case
Canada vs Dow Chemical Canada ULC. Dec 2020, Tax Court, Case No. 2020 TCC 139

Canada vs Dow Chemical Canada ULC. Dec 2020, Tax Court, Case No. 2020 TCC 139

This decision is about the jurisdiction of the Tax Court of Canada, or perhaps more accurately about the scope of an appeal of an assessment. It arises in the context of an appeal by Dow Chemical Canada ULC of a reassessment of its 2006 taxation year. The reassessment increased Dow Chemical’s income under the transfer pricing provisions in section 247 of the Income Tax Act. In reassessing Dow Chemical for its 2006 and 2007 taxation years, the tax authorities had increased Dow Chemical’s income in respect of certain transactions with non-residents to which Dow Chemical is related. The authorities initially indicated that the transfer pricing provisions also would result in a downward adjustment to Dow Chemical’s income in those taxation years in respect of another transaction. However, the most recent reassessment of Dow Chemical’s 2006 taxation year did not reflect the downward adjustment, although the ... Continue to full case
Romania vs Impresa Pizzarotti & C SPA Italia, October 2020, ECJ Case C-558/19

Romania vs Impresa Pizzarotti & C SPA Italia, October 2020, ECJ Case C-558/19

A Regional Court of Romania requested a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice in the Case of Impresa Pizzarotti. Impresa Pizzarotti is the Romanian branch of SC Impresa Pizzarotti & C SPA Italia (‘Pizzarotti Italia’), established in Italy. In 2017, the Romanian tax authorities conducted an audit of an branch of Impresa Pizzarotti. The audit revealed that the branch had concluded, as lender, two loan agreements with its parent company, Pizzarotti Italia: one dated 6 February 2012 for EUR 11 400 000 and another dated 9 March 2012 for EUR 2 300 000. Those sums had been borrowed for an initial period of one year, which could be extended by way of addendum, that the loan agreements did not contain any clause concerning the charging of interest by Impresa Pizzarotti, and that although the outstanding amount as of 1 January 2013 was EUR 11 250 000, both ... Continue to full case
Belgium vs ALCOPA N.V, September 2020, Supreme Court, Case No RG F.19.0056.N

Belgium vs ALCOPA N.V, September 2020, Supreme Court, Case No RG F.19.0056.N

The dispute concerns a tax assessments issued by the plaintiff (the Belgian tax administration) for FY 2002 and 2003. In particular, the claimant (Alcopa N.V – the first company to sign a European distribution contract with Hyundai) contests the classification of reimbursements received from the Korean company HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY for publicity services, for an amount of EUR 1,965,630.46 in assessment year 2002 and for an amount of EUR 1,057,007.00 in assessment year 2003, as abnormal or gratuitous benefits and the consequent rejection of the DBI [Definitief Belaste Inkomsten] deduction from the profits arising from those abnormal or gratuitous benefits in application of Section 207 ITC92. The Antwerp Court of First Instance, Antwerp Division, ruled by judgment dated 13 January 2016 that it was indisputably established that abnormal or gratuitous benefits were granted to the plaintiff, so that the tax administration correctly applied Section 207(2) ... Continue to full case
Peru vs Colegio de Abogados de La Libertad, September 2020, Constitutional Court, Case No 556/2020

Peru vs Colegio de Abogados de La Libertad, September 2020, Constitutional Court, Case No 556/2020

In February 2019, Colegio de Abogados de La Libertad (CALL) in Peru filed an appeal before the Constitutional Court claiming that tax debts of at least 9 billion soles (USD 2,5 billions) owed by 158 large companies could not be collected by the tax authorities (SUNAT) due to the statute of limitation in Legislative Decree 1421. By four votes against and one vote for, the Constitutional Court rejected the claim. NoCOMPANY/TAXPAYERSTATUTE OF LIMITATIONS INVOKEDSTATUTE OF LIMITATIONS NOT INVOKEDTOTAL 1COMPAÑIA DE MINAS BUENAVENTURA S.A.A.2.083.106.4842.083.106.484 2SCOTIABANK PERU SAA1.076.546.4201.076.546.420 3COMPAÑIA MINERA ANTAPACCAY S.A.2.961.028725.065.302728.026.330 4MINERA LAS BAMBAS S.A.698.986.212698.986.212 5SOCIEDAD MINERA CERRO VERDE S.A.A542.560.586542.560.586 6TELEFONICA DEL PERU SAA301.180.21257.714.287358.894.499 7LATAM AIRLINES PERU S.A.332.312.17118.782.845351.095.016 8CONSORCIO MINERO S.A. EN LIQUIDACION122.737.710171.965.780294.703.490 9EMPRESA MINERA LOS QUENUALES S.A.255.456.549255.456.549 10AMERICA MOVIL PERU S.A.C.246.510.566246.510.566 11ENEL GENERACION PERU S.A.A.236.223.504236.223.504 12VOLCAN COMPANIA MINERA S.A.A161.464.638161.464.638 13SUPERMERCADOS PERUANOS SOCIEDAD ANONIMA 'O ' S.P.S.A33.294.659104.866.817138.161.476 14UNIVERSIDAD PERUANA DE CIENCIAS APLICADAS S.A.C128.889.678128.889.678 15COMPANIA MINERA ANTAMINA ... Continue to full case
Poland vs "Fish Factory" sp. z o.o., July 2020, Administrative Court, I SA/Gd 184/20 - Wyrok

Poland vs “Fish Factory” sp. z o.o., July 2020, Administrative Court, I SA/Gd 184/20 – Wyrok

The activity of Spółka A sp. z o.o. included salmon breeding, processing, smoking and sale and distribution of the finished products. The company operated within Group A with head quarter in the Netherlands. By decision of 27 May 2019, the tax authorities determined that the operating expenses determined by transactions with related parties were inflated by PLN 29,613,156.00. The authorities did not accept calculations presented by the Company, as there were no reliable accounting records regarding the amount of costs incurred. Furthermore, the authorities held that the cost plus method, which should guarantee profit on the transaction in the Company, had been applied incorrect. The dispute before the administrative Court boils down to assessing whether the court of first instance, in compliance with the provisions in force, reversed the decision of the authorities in its entirety and referred the case back for reconsideration due to ... Continue to full case
Tanzania vs JSC ATOMREDMETZOLOTO (ARMZ), June 2020, Court of Appeal, Appeals No 78-79-2018

Tanzania vs JSC ATOMREDMETZOLOTO (ARMZ), June 2020, Court of Appeal, Appeals No 78-79-2018

JSC Atomredmetzolo (ARMZ) is a chartered open Joint Stock Company incorporated in the Russian Federation dealing in uranium mining industry. Late 2010, the Company purchased from the Australia Stock Exchange all shares in Mantra Resources Limited (Mantra Resources) a company incorporated in Australia and owner of Mkuju River Uranium project located Tanzania. Following the acquisition of all the issued shares in Mantra Australia, JSC Atomredmetzolo became a sole registered and beneficiary owner of shares in Mantra Australia making Mantra Australia a wholly owned subsidiary of JSC Atomredmetzolo. Hence Mantra Tanzania and Mkuju River Uranium Project were placed under the control of JSC Atomredmetzolo who had a majority 51.4% shareholding in a Canadian Uranium exploration and mining company named Uranium One Inc. Thus, JSC Atomredmetzolo opted to invest in the Mkuju River Uranium project through Uranium One based in Canada. Subsequently, JSC Atomredmetzolo entered into a ... Continue to full case
Chile vs Monsanto Chile S.A, April 2020, Tribunal Constitucional de Chile, Case N° Rol 7864-19-INA

Chile vs Monsanto Chile S.A, April 2020, Tribunal Constitucional de Chile, Case N° Rol 7864-19-INA

Monsanto Chile, Since 2018 a subsidiary in the Bayer group, had been issued a tax assessment related to FY 2009 and 2010 resulting in additional taxes of approximately $800.000.000. and penal interest of 1,5% per month in an amount of $2.216.759.197. Monsanto filed an appeal in regards to the penal interest of $2.216.759.197. In the appeal the company argued, that the interest should be inapplicable since the case has been delayed by Courts due to both lack of activities and COVID 19. Decision of the Court In a split decision the Constitutional Court ruled in favor of Monsanto and declared the penal interest inapplicable. “For all the reasons stated in this ruling, this Court concludes that the application of the penal interest provided for in the third paragraph of Article 53 of the Tax Code, in this specific case, contravenes the constitutional guarantees contained in ... Continue to full case
Poland vs K. sp. z o.o., January 2020, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 191/19 - Wyrok

Poland vs K. sp. z o.o., January 2020, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 191/19 – Wyrok

K. sp. z o.o. is a Polish company belonging to an international group. The main activity of K is local sale of goods purchased from a intra group supplier. K is best characterized as a limited risk distributor and as such should achieve an certain predetermined level of profitability as a result of its activities. In order to achieve the determined level of profitability, the group had established that, if the operating margin actually achieved by the distributor during a given period is less or more than the assumed level of profit, it will be adjusted. The year-end adjustment will not be directly related to the prices of goods purchased from the intra-group supplier and will be made after the end of each financial year. The Administrative Court decided that the year-end adjustment is not sufficiently linked to obtaining, maintaining or securing the company’s income. Hence ... Continue to full case
Greece vs "VSR Inc", December 2019, Court, Case No A 2631/2019

Greece vs “VSR Inc”, December 2019, Court, Case No A 2631/2019

At issue was the transfer of taxable assets from a shareholder to a 100% owned company, “VSR Inc”. This transfer of resulted in an understatement of profits in a controlled sale of vehicle scrapping rights. Following an audit, the tax authority concluded that the rights had been acquired in the previous quarter from the one transferred and that a sale value below cost could not be justified. According to the tax authorities the arrangement lacked economic or commercial substance. The sole purpose had been to lower the overall taxation. An revised tax assessment – and a substantial fine – was issued by the tax authorities. VSR filed an appeal. Judgement of the Court The court dismissed the appeal and decided in favor of the tax authorities. “Since it is apparent from the above that the above transactions were intended to transfer taxable material from the ... Continue to full case
Israel vs Broadcom, December 2019, Lod District Court, Case No 26342-01-16

Israel vs Broadcom, December 2019, Lod District Court, Case No 26342-01-16

Broadcom Semiconductors Ltd is an Israeli company established in 2001 under the name Dune Semiconductors Ltd. The Company is engaged in development, production, and sale of components to routers, switches etc. The shares in Dune Semiconductors were acquired by the Broadcom Corporation (a US group) in 2009 and following the acquisition intellectual property was transferred to the new Parent for a sum of USD 17 million. The company also entered into tree agreements to provide marketing and support services to a related Broadcom affiliate under a cost+10%, to provide development services to a related Broadcom affiliate for cost+8%, and a license agreement to use Broadcom Israel’s intellectual property for royalties of approximately 14% of the affiliate’s turnover. The tax authorities argued that functions, assets, and risks had been transferred leaving only an empty shell in Israel and a tax assessment was issued based on the purchase ... Continue to full case
Loading...