Type of court: District Court

Israel vs Medingo Ltd, May 2022, District Court, Case No 53528-01-16

blank

In April 2010 Roche pharmaceutical group acquired the entire share capital of the Israeli company, Medingo Ltd, for USD 160 million. About six months after the acquisition, Medingo was entered into 3 inter-group service agreements: a R&D services agreement, pursuant to which Medingo was to provide R&D services in exchange for cost + 5%. All developments under the agreement would be owned by Roche. a services agreement according to which Medingo was to provided marketing, […]

Poland vs “Sport O.B. SA”, March 2021, Provincial Administrative Court, Case No I SA/Rz 4/22

blank

Following a business restructuring, rights in a trademark developed and used by O.B SA was transferred to a related party “A”. The newly established company A had no employees and all functions in the company was performed by O.B. SA. Anyhow, going forward O.B SA would now pay a license fee to A for using the trademark. The payments from O.B SA were the only source of income for “A” (apart from interest). According to […]

Czech Republic vs Avon Cosmetics Ltd, February 2022, Municipal Court, Case No 6 Af 36/2020 – 42

blank

In 2016 the British company Avon Cosmetics Limited (ACL) became the sole licensor of intellectual property rights for Europe, Africa and the Middle East within the Avon Cosmetics Group and was authorised to issue sub-licences to other group companies, including the Czech subsidiary, Avon Cosmetics spol. s r.o.. ACL charged a fee for issuing a sub-licence equal to an agreed-upon percentage of net sales but was then contractually obliged to pay a similar fee to […]

Israel vs Sephira & Offek Ltd and Israel Daniel Amram, August 2021, Jerusalem District Court, Case No 2995-03-17

blank

While living in France, Israel Daniel Amram (IDA) devised an idea for the development of a unique and efficient computerized interface that would link insurance companies and physicians and facilitate financial accounting between medical service providers and patients. IDA registered the trademark “SEPHIRA” and formed a company in France under the name SAS SEPHIRA . IDA then moved to Israel and formed Sephira & Offek Ltd. Going forward the company in Israel would provid R&D […]

Netherlands vs “Related Party B.V.”, July 2021, District Court, Case No ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2021:3382

blank

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 […]

Poland vs A S.A., June 2021, Provincial Administrative Court, Case No I SA/Gl 1649/20

blank

The business activity of A S.A. was wholesale of pharmaceutical products to external pharmacies, hospitals, wholesalers (including: to affiliated wholesalers). The tax authority had noted that the company’s name had been changed in FY 2013, and a loss in the amount of PLN […] had been reported in the company’s tax return. An audit revealed that the Company had transferred significant assets (real estate) to a related entity on non-arm’s length terms. The same real […]

Russia vs PJSC Vimpelcom-Communications, May 2021, Arbitration Court of Moscow, Case No. A40-36350/21-140-1024

blank

PJSC Vimpelcom-Communications submitted to the tax authority a revised notice of controlled transactions for 2017, under which contract numbers for 68 transactions were adjusted, including an agreement with a foreign counterparty Veon Wholensale Services B.V. (Netherlands) for the provision of agency-services (the “Controlled Transactions”), and information was also provided on another transaction with another foreign counterparty. Based on the revised notification, the Russian Tax Authorities issued a decision on 29 December 2020 to conduct an […]

Norway vs New Wave Norway AS, March 2021, Court of Appeal, Case No LB-2020-10664

blank

New Wave Norway AS is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Swedish New Wave Group AB. The group operates in the wholesale market for sports and workwear and gift and promotional items. It owns trademark rights to several well-known brands. The sales companies – including New Wave Norway AS – pay a concept fee to New Wave Group AB, which passes on the fee to the concept-owning companies in the Group. All trademark rights owned […]

Czech Republic vs. LCN Group s.r.o., April 2020, Regional Court, Case No 25 Af 76/2019 – 42

blank

LCN Group s.r.o. had deducted costs in its taxable income for marketing services provided by related parties. Following an audit, the tax authorities concluded that the prices agreed between the parties was not at arm’s length and issued an assessment. Decision of the Regional Court The Regional Court annulled the assessment and decided in favor of the LNC Group. The court held that the tax authorities had not sufficiently dealt with the identification and description […]

Japan vs. “Metal Plating Corp”, February 2020, Tokyo District Court, Case No 535 of Heisei 27 (2008)

blank

“Metal Plating Corp” is engaged in manufacturing and selling plating chemicals and had entered into a series of controlled transactions with foreign group companies granting licenses to use intangibles (know-how related to technology and sales) – and provided technical support services by sending over technical experts. The company had used a CUP method to price these transactions based on “internal comparables”. The tax authorities found that the amount of the consideration paid to “Metal Plating […]

Next Page »