Cidiverte S.p.A. is an Italian distributor of video-games. Following an audit, the tax authorities issued Cidiverte S.p.A an assessment of additional income resulting from a reduction of the pricing of costs it had paid to its Italian sister company. Appeals were filed by Cidiverte with the local and regional courts, but the objections were dismissed by reference to a previous judgement of the Supreme Court in href=”https://tpcases.com/italy-vs-take-two-interactive-italia-s-r-l-2012-supreme-court-no-119492012/”>Case no. 11949/2012 concerning disallowed costs in the same group. An appeal was then filed by Cidiverte with the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Court The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the regional court and refered the case back to the court, in a different composition, for further examinations. Excerpts “Therefore, without prejudice to the principles of law on the burden of proof set out in the Supreme Court’s judgment, the referring court should have examined the allegations ... Continue to full case

Under India’s Income Tax Act, an appeal against an order of an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be made to the High Court if it is satisfied that the case involves a “substantial question of law”. In the 2018 case of Softbrands India Private Ltd., the Karnataka High Court held that issues relating to the selection of comparable data and criteria for comparability in benchmarking for transfer pricing purposes do not raise a “substantial question of law”. In the 2023 case of SAP Labs India Private Ltd., the Supreme Court reversed this decision. According to the Supreme Court, it is always open to a High Court in an appeal involving transfer pricing issues to examine on a case-by-case basis whether the transfer pricing rules have been complied with or not and whether there is any perversity in the findings made by the Tribunal in determining ... Continue to full case

In 2022 the Federal Court of Canada ruled in favour of the Revenue Agency and dismissed Dow Chemicals’ appeal regarding the Tax Court’s jurisdiction to make a downward adjustment. The Federal Court held that the Tax Court could not overturn the Revenue Agency’s (Minister’s) opinion that a requested downward adjustment was inappropriate because the Tax Court’s jurisdiction is only to set aside, vary or remit an assessment to the Minister, whereas an opinion is not an assessment. According to the Federal Court, the jurisdiction to judicially review an opinion lies with the Federal Court. Following the Federal Court’s decision, Dow Chemicals filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Appellant DCC.pdf Respondent HMTK.pdf Appellant DCC.pdf Judgement of the Supreme Court In a judgment of 23 February 2023, the application for leave to appeal was granted and the question of jurisdiction will now ... Continue to full case

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

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

The transfer pricing setup of a group was changed following a business restructuring, and “IPC manufacturing KtF” had deducted 4 invoices issued as a transfer pricing adjustment. The tax authorities disallowed the deduction, since the invoices did not cover any actual costs of materials for the year in question. An appeal was filed by “IPC manufacturing KtF” with the Court, where the assessment of the tax authorities was upheld. An appeal was then filed with the Supreme Court based on formalities of the decision issued by the Court of first instance. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of first instance and the assessment issued by the tax authorities. Excerpt “The Court of First Instance correctly ruled that the tax authority was correct in its finding that the value of the invoices could not be deducted as material ... Continue to full case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Z-Group had been subject to a joint transfer pricing audit by the tax administrations of Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, Austria and Germany in order to examine the appropriateness of the franchise fee charged between the group companies. Z Group filed a complaint where it disputed the German tax administration’s entitlement to cooperate in a coordinated cross-border external tax audit and, in this context, to exchange information with the other tax administrations. Judgement of the Tax Court The Court dismissed the complaint filed by Z Group. Excerpt “118 The defendant does not violate the principle of subsidiarity by agreeing on or conducting a coordinated examination as planned in the present case with Belgium, France, Italy, Spain and Austria. With reference to the findings of the domestic tax audit, the defendant understandably points out that the audit serves to further clarify the facts, which is not possible ... Continue to full case

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

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

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

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

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