Type of court: Federal Administrative Court

Austria vs C-Group, March 2022, Bundesfinanzgericht, Case No RV/7102553/2021

blank

C is the parent company of the C-group which is involved in the construction business. C is part of a joint venture and for the expansion of these activities a framework agreement on shareholder loans was concluded. Under the agreement two shareholder loans were granted: ***loan*** II totalling 212,935,716.33 euros and ***loan*** III totalling 446,000,000 euros. At issue is whether (***loan*** II and ***loan*** III) are to be regarded as hidden equity capital or debt […]

Austria vs “ACQ-Group”, February 2022, Bundesfinanzgericht, Case No RV/7104702/2018

blank

“ACQ-Group” had acquired the shares in foreign subsidiaries and financed the acquisition partially by intra group loans. Furthermore, in the years following the acquisition, goodwill amortisations were deducted for tax purposes. The tax authorities issued an assessment where the interest rate on the loans had been reduced, and where costs related to external financing and amortisations of acquired goodwill had been denied. An appeal was filed by “ACQ”. Decision of the Federal Tax Court Before […]

Spain vs Varian Medical Systems Iberica S.L., October 2021, Audiencia Nacional, Case No SAN 4241/2021 – ECLI:ES:AN:2021:4241

blank

Varian Medical Systems Iberica S.L. is the Spanish subsidiary of the multinational company Varian Medical Systems and carries out two types of activities – distribution and after-sales services. The products sold was purchased from related entities: Varian Medical Systems Inc., Varian Medical Systems UK Ltd., Varian Medical Systems International AG and Varian Medical Systems HAAN GmbH. The remuneration of Varian Medical Systems Iberica S.L. had been determined by application of the net margin method for […]

Argentina vs Malteria Pampa SA, October 2021, Federal Administrative Court, Case No TF 35123-A

blank

Malteria Pampa S.A in Argentina exported malt to a related intermediary in Uruguay that in turn sold on the goods to the brewery in Brazil at a higher price. The tax authorities applied the Sixth method and issued an assessment where the export price was determined based on the latter price used in the transaction with the brewery in Brazil. Furthermore a substantial fine was issued to the Malteria Pampa S.A. for non compliance. In […]

Spain vs Comeresa Prensa S.L.U., September 2021, Audiencia Nacional, Case No SAN 3857/2021 – ECLI:ES:AN:2021:3857

blank

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 […]

Austria vs. “Yogo Food-Distributor”, August 2021, Bundesfinanzgericht, Case No RV/3100163/2018

blank

“Yogo Food-Distributor” is a subsidiary in the “Yogo Group” and trades in spices and canned meat and vegetables from the territory of the former Yugoslavia. The main sales markets are Austria and Germany (90%), the remainder being distributed among France, Scandinavia, Great Britain and the Benelux countries. Following an audit the tax authorities issued an assessment of additional taxable income determined by way of a benchmark study into comparable businesses. Yogo Food Distributor was of […]

Germany vs “G-Corp GmbH”, June 2021, Bundesfinanzhof, Case No I R 32/17

blank

A German corporation,”G Corp” held interests in domestic and foreign companies in the year in dispute (2005). G Corp granted loans to various subordinate companies – resident in France and the USA. These loans were mainly at fixed interest rates; instead of a fixed interest rate, an annual participation of 12.5% in the balance sheet profit of the subordinate company, limited to a maximum amount of 25% of the loan volume, was agreed as consideration […]

Germany vs Lender GmbH, May 2021, Bundesfinanzhof, Case No I R 62/17

blank

Lender GmbH acquired all shares in T GmbH from T in 2012 (year in dispute) for a purchase price of … €. To finance the purchase price of the shares, Lender GmbH took out a loan from its sole shareholder, D GmbH, a loan in the amount of … €, which bore interest at 8% p.a. (shareholder loan). The interest was not to be paid on an ongoing basis, but only on expiry of the […]

Spain vs DIGITEX INFORMÁTICA S.L., February 2021, National Court, Case No 2021:629

blank

DIGITEX INFORMATICA S.L. had entered into a substantial service contract with an unrelated party in Latin America, Telefonica, according to which the DIGITEX group would provide certain services for Telefonica. The contract originally entered by DIGITEX INFORMATICA S.L. was later transferred to DIGITEX’s Latin American subsidiaries. But after the transfer, cost and amortizations related to the contract were still paid – and deducted for tax purposes – by DIGITEX in Spain. The tax authorities found […]

Spain vs BIOMERIEUX ESPAÑA SA, February 2021, National Court, Case No 2021:416

blank

BIOMERIEUX ESPAÑA SA is active in the business of clinical and biological analysis, production, distribution, training and technical assistance. Likewise, the provision of computer services and, in particular, the computer management of laboratories. Following an audit the tax authorities found that the controlled prices agreed for the acquisition of instruments and consumables between bioMérieux España and its related entities, bioMérieux SA and bioMérieux Inc, did not provided bioMérieux España with an arm’s length return on […]

Switzerland vs “Contractual Seller SA”, May 2020, Federal Administrative Court, Case No A-2286/2017

blank

C. SA provides “services, in particular in the areas of communication, management, accounting, management and budget control, sales development monitoring and employee training for the group to which it belongs, active in particular in the field of “F”.   C. SA is part of an international group of companies, G. group, whose ultimate owner is A. The G group includes H. Ltd, based in the British Virgin Islands, I. Ltd, based in Guernsey and J. […]

Germany vs “X Sub GmbH”, December 2016, Münster Fiscal Court, Case No 13 K 4037/13 K,F

blank

X Sub GmbH is a German subsidiary of a multinational group. The parent company Y Par B.V. and the financial hub of the group Z Fin B.V. – a sister company to the German subsidiary – are both located in the Netherlands. In its function as a financial hub, Z Fin B.V granted several loans to X Sub GmbH. The interest rate on the loans had been determined by the group based on the CUP […]

Germany vs Capital GmbH, June 2015, Bundesfinanzhof, Case No I R 29/14

blank

The German subsidiary of a Canadian group lent significant sums to its under-capitalised UK subsidiary. The debt proved irrecoverable and was written off in 2002 when the UK company ceased trading. At the time, such write-offs were permitted subject to adherence to the principle of dealing at arm’s length. In its determination of profits on October 31, 2002, the German GmbH made a partial write-off of the repayment claim against J Ltd. in the amount […]

Germany vs US resident German taxpayer, October 2013, Supreme Tax Court, Case No IX R 25/12

blank

The Supreme Tax Court has held that the costs incurred by a taxpayer in connection with a tax treaty mutual agreement proceeding are not costs of earning the relevant income, but has left open a possible deduction as “unusual expenses”. A US resident realised a gain on the sale of a share in a GmbH. The German tax office sought to tax the gain, but the taxpayer objected on the grounds that it was taxable […]

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 […]

Germany vs “Spedition Gmbh”, December 2012, Federal Tax Court 11.10.2012, I R 75/11

blank

Spedition Gmbh entered a written agreement – at year-end – to pay management fees to its Dutch parent for services received during the year. The legal question was the relationship between arm’s-length principle as included in double tax treaties and the norms for income assessments in German tax law. The assessment of the tax office claiming a hidden distribution of profits because of the “retrospective” effect of the written agreement, was rejected by the Court. […]

Germany vs “Loss Distributor GmbH”, April 2005, Bundesfinanzhof, I R 22/04

blank

The Bundesfinanzhof confirmed that losses incurred by a simpel distribution entity over a longer period of time trigger a rebuttable presumption in Germany that transfer prices have not been at arm’s length. A German company, Loss Distributor GmbH, imported goods from their Swiss sister company S-AG and had made continious losses over a period of time. The tax authorities found that the purchase prices paid to the S-AG had increased since 1989 and that the German company could not fully pass […]