Category: Legality – Legitimacy – Constitutional

Malaysia vs Executive Offshore Shipping SDN BHD, December 2022, High Court, Case No WA-25-388-12/2021

Malaysia vs Executive Offshore Shipping SDN BHD, December 2022, High Court, Case No WA-25-388-12/2021

Executive Offshore Shipping SDN BHD is in the business of chartering offshore support vessels. It is related to another company, one Eagle High (L) Limited which is a ship-owning company registered in the special tax zone of Labuan where transfer pricing provisions were first introduced in 2020. Eagle High (L) Limited provided (i) charter hire of vessels and (ii) crew management services to Executive Offshore Shipping for the Years of Assessment – 2014 to 2016. In consideration for these services Executive Offshore Shipping paid a cost-plus mark-up rate of 35% as the charter hire and crew management fee. Following an audit the tax authorities asserted that Executive Offshore Shipping SDN BHD had underreported the its taxable income for FY 2014 to 2016. An assessment was issued where additional income of RM19,808,218.39 had been determined by reference to the arm’s length principle. The tax authorities rejected ... Continue to full case
Italy vs Quaker Italia Srl, November 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 34728/2022

Italy vs Quaker Italia Srl, November 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 34728/2022

Quaker Italia Srl is a non-exclusive distributor of Quaker products in Italy – lubricating oils and greases. It also carries out a minor manufacturing activity. An assessment was issued by the tax authorities in 2012 regarding the remuneration received for the distribution activities in FY 2007. The Tax authorities considered that the documentation provided by the company was contradictory and incomplete, and therefore recalculated the income using a (partially) different method (TNMM in the modified resale price version, instead of TNMM in the modified cost-plus version). This resulted in additional taxable income in the amount of Euro 1,180,447.00. A complaint was filed by Quaker with the Provincial Tax Commission. The Provincial Commission confirmed the legitimacy and effectiveness of the tax assessment. An appeal was then filed with the the Regional Tax Commission (CTR) of Lombardy. The Regional Tax Commission rejected the appeal and confirmed the ... Continue to full case
Czech Republic vs DFH Haus CZ s.r.o., November 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 4 Afs 98/2022-45

Czech Republic vs DFH Haus CZ s.r.o., November 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 4 Afs 98/2022-45

In 2013, DFH Haus CZ s.r.o. filed amended tax returns for 2006, 2010, and 2011, following the German tax authority’s adjustment of its transfer prices in 2006, in order to claim the resulting tax loss for 2006 and apply it against its tax liability in the Czech Republic for 2010 and 2011. The tax authorities disallowed these amendments. A complaint filed by DFH with the regional court was dismissed and an appeal was then filed with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgement of the Court The Supreme Administrative Court rejected DFH’s appeal and upheld the decision of the tax authorities. Excerpts “[34] On the basis of the foregoing, the Supreme Court of Justice, like the Regional Court, considers that the complainant’s tax loss for 2006, as a relevant fact in terms of the reopening of proceedings, was incurred, assessed and could be deducted from the tax ... Continue to full case
Czech Republic vs DFH Haus CZ s.r.o., November 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 4 Afs 287/2020-54

Czech Republic vs DFH Haus CZ s.r.o., November 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 4 Afs 287/2020-54

In 2013, DFH Haus CZ s.r.o. filed amended tax returns for 2006, 2010, and 2011, following the German tax authority’s adjustment of its transfer prices in 2006, in order to claim the resulting tax loss for 2006 and apply it against its tax liability in the Czech Republic for 2010 and 2011. The tax authorities disallowed the amendments. A complaint filed by DFH with the district court was dismissed and an appeal was then filed with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgement of the Court The Court rejected DFH’s arguments that the tax loss must be allowed under the Czech-German income tax treaty. DFH could not reduce its tax liabilities in the Czech Republic in 2010 and 2011 with the 2006 tax loss resulting from the German transfer pricing adjustment. The Court noted that the usual purpose of double taxation treaties is to regulate the place ... Continue to full case
Hong Kong vs Directors of Nam Tai Trading Company Limited, August 2022, Court of Appeal, Case FACV No. 1 of 2022

Hong Kong vs Directors of Nam Tai Trading Company Limited, August 2022, Court of Appeal, Case FACV No. 1 of 2022

The tax returns of Nam Tai Trading Company Limited (“NT Trading”) for the years 1996/97, 1997/98 and 1999/2000 were found by the tax authorities to be incorrect due to non arm’s length pricing of controlled transactions. Mr Koo and Mr Murakami, were directors of NT Trading at the time. Mr Koo signed the first and third of those returns, and Mr Murakami signed the second. NT Trading’s attempts to challenge the Inland Revenue Department’s assessments were unsuccessful. In 2013, the directors were assessed to additional tax under section 82A(1)(a) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112) (the “Ordinance”) on the basis that the Returns were incorrect. At the relevant time, section 82A(1)(a) provided: “(1) Any person who without reasonable excuse— (a) makes an incorrect return by omitting or understating anything in respect of which he is required by this Ordinance to make a return, either ... Continue to full case
Canada vs Dow Chemicals, April 2022, Federal Court of Appeal, Case No 2022 FCA 70

Canada vs Dow Chemicals, April 2022, Federal Court of Appeal, Case No 2022 FCA 70

This appeal and cross-appeal arise as a result of the response provided by the Tax Court of Canada to a question submitted under Rule 58 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), SOR/90-688a. The question was: Where the Minister of National Revenue has exercised her discretion pursuant to subsection 247(10) of the Income Tax Act (“ITA”) to deny a taxpayer’s request for a downward transfer pricing adjustment, is that a decision falling outside the exclusive original jurisdiction granted to the Tax Court of Canada under section 12 of the Tax Court of Canada Act and section 171 of the ITA? This question arose in the context of the appeal commenced by Dow Chemical Canada ULC (Dow) in relation to the reassessment of its 2006 taxation year. The Tax Court (2020 TCC 139) provided the following answer to this question: The Court has determined ... 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
Spain vs Dasher Spain S.A., January 2022, Supreme Court, Case No ATS 601/2022 - ECLI:EN:TS:2022:601A

Spain vs Dasher Spain S.A., January 2022, Supreme Court, Case No ATS 601/2022 – ECLI:EN:TS:2022:601A

An appeal before the Supreme Court was allowed to determine whether or not the Spanish State Tax Administration Agency is obliged to notify the Provincial Treasury of the Basque Historical Territories of a transfer pricing valuation adjustments issued to an entity taxed in accordance with the regulations of the Basque Historical Territories. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation Spain vs Dachser Spain SA ATS_601_2022 (1) ... Continue to full case
Italy vs Burckert Contromatic Italiana S.p.A., November 2021, Corte di Cassazione, Sez. 5 Num. 1417 Anno 2022

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
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
Belgium, December 2021, Constitutional Court, Case No 184/2021

Belgium, December 2021, Constitutional Court, Case No 184/2021

By a notice of December 2020, the Court of Appeal of Brussels referred the following question for a preliminary ruling by the Constitutional Court : “ Does article 207, second paragraph, ITC (1992), as it applies, read together with article 79 ITC (1992), in the interpretation that it also applies to abnormal or gratuitous advantages obtained by a Belgian company from a foreign company, violate articles 10, 11 and 172 of the Constitution? “. The Belgian company “D.W.B.”, of which Y.S. and R.W. were the managers, was set up on 4 October 2006 by the Dutch company “W.”. On 25 October 2006, the latter also set up the Dutch company “D.W.” On 9 November 2006, bv “W.” sold its shareholdings in a number of subsidiaries of the D.W. group to its subsidiary nv ” D.W. “. It was agreed that 20 % of the selling ... Continue to full case
Hungary vs G.K. Ktf, December 2021, Court of Appeals, Case No. Kfv.V.35.306/2021/9

Hungary vs G.K. Ktf, December 2021, Court of Appeals, Case No. Kfv.V.35.306/2021/9

G.K. Ktf was a subsidiary of a company registered in the United Kingdom. On 29 December 2010 G.K. Ktf entered into a loan agreement with a Dutch affiliate, G.B. BV, under which G.B. BV, as lender, granted a subordinated unsecured loan of HUF 3 billion to G.K. Ktf. Interest was set at a fixed annual rate of 11.32%, but interest was only payable when G.K. Ktf earned a ‘net income’ from its activities. The maturity date of the loan was 2060. The loan was used by G.K. Ktf to repay a debt under a loan agreement concluded with a Dutch bank in 2006. The bank loan was repaid in 2017/2018. The interest paid by G.K. Ktf under the contract was deducted as an expense of HUF 347,146,667 in 2011 and HUF 345,260,000 in 2012. But, in accordance with Dutch tax law – the so called ... Continue to full case
Hungary vs VSSB V. Service Center Budapest Zrt., December 2021, Court of Appeals, Case No. Kfv.V.35.184/2021/16

Hungary vs VSSB V. Service Center Budapest Zrt., December 2021, Court of Appeals, Case No. Kfv.V.35.184/2021/16

The VSSB Group provided liquidity to the group members by means of a cash-pool. Under the cash pool agreement, short-term and longer-term multi-currency financing transactions were carried out, including the applicant as a member of the group; the intermediary was the group member VSSB V. Service Center Budapest Zrt. (‘VSSB’). At the end of each month, the balances of the group members’ short positions (cash pool) with monthly settlement were transferred to the long term loan between the holding company, VSSB Group Plc. The members of the cash pool have either been continuously depositing funds or drawing on funds within the group. The Hungarian Service Center only deposited funds throughout the period under examination and had received a fixed rate of interest on the deposits. The funds deposited by the members of the group were transferred to the main account of the VSSB Group and ... Continue to full case
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
Liechtenstein vs D AG (formerly A AG), August 2021, Constitutional Court (Staatsgerichtshof), Case No 2021/029

Liechtenstein vs D AG (formerly A AG), August 2021, Constitutional Court (Staatsgerichtshof), Case No 2021/029

In the course of an Austrian tax audit related party transactions between C GmbH, Austria, and D AG (formerly A AG), Liechtenstein, could only be traced on the basis of balance sheets and tax returns of A AG, Liechtenstein. In January 2019, the Austrian Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF), Vienna, therefore submitted a request for information to the Liechtenstein Tax Administration based on Article 25a of the DTA between Liechtenstein and Austria, concluded on 5 November 1969 and in particular as amended by the Protocol concluded on 29 January 2013, LGBl. 2013 No. 433. The ***-group is active in the field of online and direct marketing. The head office of the *** Group is in Vaduz. All intangible assets are owned by D AG in Liechtenstein and include all data (more than 100 million), IP and trademark rights, the servers, essential software, domains and know-how ... 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
Canada vs Amdocs CMS Inc., July 2021, Federal Court, Case No 2021 FC 707

Canada vs Amdocs CMS Inc., July 2021, Federal Court, Case No 2021 FC 707

An employee (tax manager) of Amdocs Inc did not cooperate with the Canada Revenue Agency during several audits of the company and did not inform his superior about the audits. The audits resulted in tax reassessments for FY 2012 – 2014. The reassessment concerning FY 2012 resulted in income tax payable by $3,353,906, but by the time the employee informed his superior of the reassessment in 2019, Amdocs was time barred from objecting by virtue of the limitation periods. With respect to the assessments for FY 2013 and 2014 the limitation period for objections had not yet elapsed. Amdocs Inc filed an appeal with the court in regards of the denied access to object on the assessment for FY 2012. Judgement of the Federal Court The court dismissed the appeal of Amdocs and decided in favor of the tax authorities. Excerpts “…I find the Minister’s ... 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 for oil and gas. 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, ... 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