Germany vs “Sales KG”, March 1980, Bundesfinanzhof, Case No IR 186/76

Posted on | By Courts of Germany
Category: Arm's Length Principle | Tag: , ,
« | »

The sales company … – (GmbH) was the managing general partner of the plaintiff and defendant, a limited partnership – “Sales KG” – in the years in dispute. The GmbH had a 10/11 share in the capital of “Sales KG”. The limited partner was the Dutchman G. Shareholders of the GmbH with a share of 99% were the … NV (NV) and the … in The Hague (NV L-V). “Sales KG” engaged in wholesale trade in …, which it purchased almost exclusively from NV. It granted its customers rebates, bonuses and discounts in the years in dispute (1962 – 1964).

According to the findings of the tax authorities (FA), “Sales KG” had to pay interest on its goods liabilities after 90 days from 1963. It did not charge its customers corresponding interest. The tax authorities increased the profit of “Sales KG” mainly by adding profits allegedly transferred to the Netherlands. In the absence of suitable documentation, the profit shifting was to be estimated at 3% per annum of the purchase of goods from NV. The tax authorities relied on Article 6 of the Agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of the Netherlands for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital and Miscellaneous Taxes and for the Settlement of Other Questions in the Field of Taxation of 16 June 1959 – DBA-Netherlands – (BGBl II 1960, 1782, BStBl I 1960, 382), § 217 of the Reich Tax Code (AO) and § 19 No. 6 of the Regulation for the Implementation of the Corporation Tax Act (KStDV).

“Sales KG” filed an action against the notices and the Fiscal Court (Finanzgericht, FG) amended the challenged notices and partly reassessed the profits of “Sales KG” and the profit shares of the partners. For the rest, it dismissed the action.

The tax authorities lodged an appeal against this decision.

Judgement of the Court

The Court found that the tax court had correctly refused to increase the profit shares (§ 215.2 AO) of “Sales KG” by the profits allegedly transferred to the NV, as the conditions for a hidden distribution of profits (§ 6.1 sentence 2 of the Corporation Tax Act – KStG -, § 19 no. 6 KStDV) between the GmbH and its shareholder, NV in Holland, were not met.

Excerpts
“The requirements for a hidden profit distribution between the GmbH and the NV are not fulfilled. Although the FG did not have to decide on this question from its point of view, its findings are sufficient to exclude a hidden profit distribution in the case in dispute.
According to the established case law of the Federal Fiscal Court (Bundesfinanzhof, BFH), a hidden profit distribution requires that a corporation grants its shareholders pecuniary advantages and that this benefit has its cause in the corporate relationship. The causality of the corporate relationship is given if the corporation would not grant the advantages to a non-shareholder if it exercised the due care of a prudent and conscientious manager (§ 43, paragraph 1 of the Limited Liability Companies Act) (cf. BFH judgements of 30 July 1975, I R 110/72, BFHE 117, 36, BStBl II 1976, 74, and of 3 February 1977, IV R 122/73, BFHE 121, 327, BStBl II 1977, 346, with further references). N.).
The GmbH allegedly benefited the NV by causing it, as managing director and majority shareholder of the KG, to make payments (excessive prices for goods and interest payments) and to waive the passing-on of costs (cf. II 1 a above).
Just as a pecuniary advantage can also be granted directly to a third party and indirectly to the shareholder instead of directly to the shareholder, the person directly granting the advantage does not have to be the GmbH itself; it can also be a third party who grants an advantage to the shareholder at the expense of his own profit. This advantage is granted indirectly by the GmbH to the extent that the reduction in profit of the third party affects its own profit (share), provided that the conditions for a hidden profit distribution are otherwise met. In principle, 10/11 of the KG’s loss of profit affects the GmbH’s profit; for the rest, the limited partner G bears the KG’s loss of profit. The Senate does not need to decide whether the possible loss of profits at the limited partnership is only fully attributable to the limited liability company because it alone caused it. In the case in dispute, there is already a lack of the fundamental prerequisite of a benefit which has its cause in the partnership relationship.
It is not evident, nor has it been shown by the tax authorities, that the prices for the goods purchased by NV were higher than the usual prices for goods …
Similarly, there are no indications that NV would have waived the default interest on the goods and would have partly supported the rebates, discounts and bonuses if it had not been a shareholder in the GmbH …”

“If a transaction, in this case e.g. a possible transfer of profits (cf. German Memorandum on the DTA-Netherlands of 16 June 1959 on Article 6, printed in Handbooks on Double Taxation Agreements, Explanatory Notes on the German-Dutch DTA, text part), cannot already be covered under the domestic tax laws, then the direct application of Article 6 of the DTA-Netherlands would amount to an impermissible extension of the tax liability. The BFH rulings on the progression proviso do not contradict this. The progression proviso does not require a domestic statutory provision for its implementation (apart from the consent law pursuant to Article 59, paragraph 2, sentence 1 of the Basic Law – GG), because it does not create a tax liability, but maintains the existing one (BFH ruling of 9 November 1966 I 29/65, BFH ruling of 9 November 1966 I 29/65, BFH ruling of 9 November 1966 I 29/65, BFH ruling of 9 November 1966 I 29/65, BFH ruling of 9 November 1966 I 29/65). This also applies if the reservation is introduced after it was not initially agreed (BFH decision of 4 October 1967 I 422/62, BFHE 90, 357, 361, BStBl II 1968, 101).
5. The FA’s appeal leads to the annulment of the tax court’s judgement insofar as the tax court determined the GmbH’s share of profits in the 1964 tax year to be lower than applied for. The tax court is bound by the application (§ 96.1 sentence 2 FGO); it may not award more to the limited partnership…”

Click here for English translation

Click here for other translation

BFH-Urteil vom 12-3-1980 I R 186-76 ORG

Related Guidelines

TPG2022 Chapter II Annex II example 1474. Below are some illustrations of the effect of choosing a measure of profits to determine the relevant profits to be split when applying a transactional profit split Scenario 1 74. Assume A and B are two associated enterprises situated in two different tax jurisdictions. Both manufacture the same widgets...
TPG2022 Chapter II Annex II example 1151.  The success of an electronics product is linked to the innovative technological design both of its electronic processes and of its major component. That component is designed and manufactured by associated company A; is transferred to associated company B which designs and manufactures the rest of the product; and is...
TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.157However, except in circumstances where the total activities of each of the parties are the subject of the profit split, the financial data will need to be segregated and allocations made in accordance with the accurately delineated transaction(s) so that the profits relating to the combined contributions made by the...
OECD COVID-19 TPG paragraph 40In determining whether or not a “limited-risk” entity may incur losses, the risks assumed by an entity will be particularly important. This reflects the fact that at arm’s length, the allocation of risks between the parties to an arrangement affects how profits or losses resulting from the transaction are allocated.23...
TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.9A more complex analysis is necessary where an associated enterprise undertakes activities that relate to more than one member of the group or to the group as a whole. In a narrow range of such cases, an intra-group activity may be performed relating to group members even though those group...
TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.97One question that arises in cases where the net profit indicator is weighted against sales is how to account for rebates and discounts that may be granted to customers by the taxpayer or the comparables. Depending on the accounting standards, rebates and discounts may be treated as a reduction of...
TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.96A net profit indicator of net profit divided by sales, or net profit margin, is frequently used to determine the arm’s length price of purchases from an associated enterprise for resale to independent customers. In such cases, the sales figure at the denominator should be the re-sales of items purchased...
TPG2022 Chapter II Annex II example 1365. Company A, resident in Country A, is the parent company of Retail Group, an MNE group engaged in the retail fashion industry. Over the years, Company A has developed know-how and has enhanced the value of the trademark and associated goodwill of its business through intensive marketing activities. In...
TPG2022 Chapter II Annex II example 1259. Company A, resident in Country A, Company B, resident in Country B, and Company C, resident in Country C, are members of an MNE group. Companies A and B undertake the design and manufacturing of products and their activities in this regard are highly integrated. Additionally, Company A and...
TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 1030. The facts in this example are the same as in Example 9, except that the market development functions undertaken by Company S in this Example 10 are far more extensive than those undertaken by Company S in Example 9. 31. Where the marketer/distributor actually bears the costs and assumes...