Corrugados del Guarco S.A. had declared losses on controlled transactions for FY 2003, 2004 and 2005 as export prices for these transactions had been set below cost and without profit margin, and also different from the price charged for that product to other independent or unrelated companies, in favour of its related company Envases Nicaragüenses S.A.
According to the Corrugados del Guarco S.A. the reason why the prices of these controlled transactions had been set low was that unfair competition had made it necessary to use a commercial strategy of selling at preferential prices to the group company in Nicaragua.
The tax authorities issued an assessment whereby the prices of the controlled transactions were adjusted in accordance with the arm’s length principle. Furthermore a fine was issued to the company for gross negligence.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
The Court dismissed the appeal of Corrugados del Guarco S.A.
Excerpts from the Judgement
“…Finally, and in relation to transfer pricing, on which the plaintiff argues reservation of law, it is necessary to indicate that guideline 20-03, called “Fiscal Treatment of Transfer Pricing, according to Normal Market Value”, issued by the Director General of Taxation on June 10, 2003, refers to the rules of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (hereinafter OECD), for the setting of prices between related companies. This international organisation is dedicated to contributing to the peaceful and harmonious development of relations between peoples, with an emphasis on collaboration in the global economy. In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber explained the content of the aforementioned body of norms as follows:
“The guideline in question is based on the assumption that if these operations have some kind of artificial manipulation, and this is detrimental to the tax authorities, it allows the application of articles 8 and 12 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures to establish that certain transactions correspond to a market value as if they had been established between independent persons or entities that compete freely. Although there are different methodologies, to conclude that a price corresponds to a certain reality or not, the problem before the Chamber is an issue closely linked to one that arises for any operator of law that must apply rules that seek to compensate forms of abuse of law or that do not correspond to an economic reality to avoid tax liabilities” (Ruling 2012-4940 of 15 hours 37 minutes of 18 April 2012). The aforementioned court also added, on the constitutionality of the rule “our country does not need to be a member of that body to make use of certain rules or practices that contain a high degree of consensus, especially if, as in the case at hand, articles 15 and 16 of the General Law on Public Administration establish the limits to discretion, even in the absence of a law, which is precisely what is happening in the present case.
This Court agrees with the Attorney General’s Office and the Minister of Finance that these are rules with a high degree of subjection to science and technique, as in the case of the general principles of accounting, where a law would not be necessary to reach a technical consensus. In this sense, those methods or techniques make it possible to arrive at a result that is as close to reality as possible, without it being necessary for them to be formally incorporated into the legal system” (ibidem). The above shows that the principle of legal reservation is not violated in the application of OECD transfer pricing methods, such as those analysed here. V.- As a second allegation, it was argued that the financial penalty was imposed without previously following a sanctioning procedure, since it only faced a determinative one.“
” In the opinion of this Court, the arguments of the appellant also fail to break this aspect of the judgement. The court took for granted that with intent, the plaintiff sold at prices below cost and that she used an agreement with another private individual to defraud the tax authorities, therefore it cannot be indicated in this court that she did not qualify the conduct, establishing that even article 71 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, allows the sanction when it has acted with intent or mere negligence, that is to say, by negligence. The law seeks to ensure that the self-assessments, on which the country’s entire tax system is based, are made seriously and carefully, and therefore penalises fraud and negligence in the self-assessment with 25 percent of what has not been paid to the Treasury. This procedure is necessarily linked to the assessment procedure, where it is defined whether what was declared and paid by the taxpayer is in accordance with the legal system and this is clearly stated by the sentencing body, which also refers that the sanctioning procedure was carried out in the terms established by the said numeral 150 CNPT and that the right of defence was guaranteed by giving the taxpayer a hearing and resolving his appeals.”Costa-Rica-vs-Corrugados-del-Guarco-2018-Corte-Suprema-de-Justicia