Legal issue: Constitutionality

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

blank

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 […]

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

blank

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 […]

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

blank

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 […]

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

blank

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 […]

Colombia vs Taxpayer, November 2020, The Constitutional Court, Sentencia No. C-486/20

blank

A Colombian taxpayer had filed an unconstitutionality complaint against Article 70 (partial) of Law 1819 of 2016, “Whereby a structural tax reform is adopted, mechanisms for the fight against tax evasion and avoidance are strengthened, and other provisions are enacted.” The Constitutional Court ruled that the Colombian GAAR legislation was not unconstitutional.   Click here for English translation Click here for other translation  

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

blank

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 […]

Mexico vs “TP doc-Lawsuit”, June 2019, Supreme Court, Case No. 14039/17-17-10-3/2502/18-PL-07-04

blank

In this case a group of taxpayers filed a lawsuit for the nullity of the new Mexican transfer pricing documentation obligations introduced in 2017 by rules 3.9.11, 3.9.14, 3.9.15, 3.9.16 and 3.9.17 of the First Resolution of Amendments to the Tax Miscellaneous published in the Official Gazette of the Federation, issued by the Head of the Tax Administration Service. Article 76-A of the Mexican Income Tax Law states that the taxpayers referred to in Article […]

El Salvador , May 2018, Supreme Court, Case No 96-2014

blank

In this case a complaint was filed requesting that Legislative Decrees Nos. 762, 763 and 764, approved at the Plenary Session of the Legislative Assembly on 30-VIII-2014, which ended on 31-VII-2014, be declared unconstitutional on procedural grounds, for the alleged violation of art. 135 inc. 1 of the Constitution of the Republic. The fundamental reason for the declaration of unconstitutionality is that there was no real possibility for parliamentary deliberation and discussion. Decision of the […]

Germany vs “Asset management Gmbh”, April 2013, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No I R 45/11

blank

Asset management Gmbh was a subsidiary of a Luxembourg investment fund management company. The German company paid substantial fees to a Luxembourg service company. Both companies in Luxembourg were wholly-owned by a Luxembourg holding company. Asset management Gmbh was obliged to follow the policies of the fund. These could only be revised by a two-thirds majority resolution of the investors. The German company argued that this restriction meant that its Luxembourg shareholder could not be […]

Costa Rica vs Nestlé, April 2012, Supreme Court, Case No 10-017768-0007-CO Res. Nº 2012004940

blank

In an appeal to the Supreme Court in Costa Rica, Nestlé claimed that the basis for an arm’s length adjustment was unconstitutional, since the arms length principle as described in the OECD transfer pricing guidelines had not been incorporated into the laws of Costa Rica. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Court dismissed the appeal of Nestlé. “The contested Guideline does not establish or impose a single method of transfer pricing analysis, so that, in […]

Next Page »