Countries: Finland

Finland vs A Oy, September 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. KHO:2021:127

blank

A Oy, the parent company of group A, had not charged a royalty (the so-called concept fee) to all local companies in the group. The tax authorities had determined the level of the local companies’ arm’s length results and thus the amounts of royalties not collected from them on the basis of the results of nine comparable companies. The comparable companies’ performance levels were -0,24 %, 0,60 %, 1,07 %, 2,90 %, 3,70 %, 5,30 […]

Finland vs A Oy, June 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. KHO:2021:73

blank

A Oy was part of the A group, whose parent company was A Corporation, a US corporation. A Oy had acted as the group’s limited risk distribution company in Finland. The transfer prices of the group companies had been determined on a mark-to-market basis using the net transaction margin method and the group companies’ operating profit on a mark-to-market basis had been determined on the basis of US GAAP, the accounting standard commonly applied within […]

Finland vs A Oyj, May 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. KHO:2021:66

blank

A Oyj was the parent company of the A-group, and responsible for the group’s centralised financial activities. It owned the entire share capital of D Oy and B Oy. D Oy in turn owned the entire share capital of ZAO C, a Russian company. A Oyj had raised funds from outside the group and lent these funds to its Finnish subsidiary B Oy, which in turn had provided a loan to ZAO C. The interest […]

Finland vs A Oy, April 2020, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. KHO:2020:34

blank

A Oy had operated as the marketing and sales company of an international group in Finland. With the exception of 2008, the company’s operations had been unprofitable in 2003-2011, while at the same time the Group’s operations had been profitable overall. A Oy had purchased the products from the contract manufacturers belonging to the group. The method used in the Group’s transfer pricing documentation for product purchases had been characterized as a modified cost-plus / […]

Finland vs A Group, April 2020, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. KHO:2020:35

blank

In 2008, the A Group had reorganized its internal financing function so that the Group’s parent company, A Oyj, had established A Finance NV in Belgium. Thereafter, A Oyj had transferred to intra-group long-term loan receivables of approximately EUR 223,500,000 to A Finance NV. In return, A Oyj had received shares in A Finance NV. The intra-group loan receivables transferred in kind had been unsecured and the interest income on the loan receivables had been […]

Finland vs Borealis OY, March 2019, Administrative Court, Decisions not yet published

On 19 March 2019, the Helsinki Administrative Court issued two decisions in a tax dispute between the Finnish tax authorities and Borealis Polymers Oy and Borealis Technology Oy. The decisions have not been published. Borealis Polymers Oy and Borealis Technology Oy are subsidiaries of Borealis AG. The Austrian Group is a leading provider of polyolefin compounds for the global wire and cable industry, plastic materials for the automotive industry and for used in consumer products. […]

Finland vs A Group, December 2018, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. KHO:2018:173

blank

During fiscal years 2006–2008, A-Group had been manufacturing and selling products in the construction industry – insulation and other building components. License fees received by the parent company A OY from the manufacturing companies had been determined by application of the CUP method. The remuneration of the sales companies in the group had been determined by application of the resale price method. The Finnish tax administration, tax tribunal and administrative court all found that the […]

Finland vs Loss Corp, December 2017, Administrative Court, Case no 17/0979/4

blank

The Finnish tax authorities had made a transfer pricing adjustment to a Finnish marketing and sales subsidiary with continuous losses. The tax authorities had identified a “hidden” services transaction between the Finnish subsidiary and an unidentified foreign group company. The Administrative Court ruled in favor of the tax authorities. The adjustment was not considered by the Court as a recharacterisation. Reference was made to TPG 2010, paragraphs 1.34, 1.42 to 1.49, 1.64, 1.65 and 1.70 […]

Finland vs Corp, September 2017, HFD:2017:145

blank

Ruling by the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court on enterprise resource planning and intra-group services arrangements. A Oyj had provided its subsidiaries with supply chain services, marketing and brand management services as well as personnel and computer services. The services offered by A Plc mainly consisted in the coordination and harmonization of the Group’s operations. A’s turnover consisted almost exclusively of the service fees received from the sale of these administrative services. As a service charge, […]

Finland vs Corp, Sep. 2017, HFD No. 2017-146

blank

Ruling by the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court on a service provider’s obligation to add a mark-up on its costs when calculating an arm’s length service charge. A Plc had provided services to it’s subsidiaryes related to supply chains, marketing and product brand management services, and human resource management services and adb services. Most of A Plc’s income consisted of these service. The amount invoiced corresponded to the servide “production cost”. No mark-up had been added. […]

Next Page »