“Retail S.A.” paid for management service fees and royalties for trademarks, know-how and technical assistance to an affiliated company in the Netherlands and deducted these payments in its tax return. To support the tax deductibility of the royalties, “Retail S.A.” submitted a transfer pricing study where it had applied the comparable uncontrolled price method and relied on external comparables. It did not use internal comparables even though the group provided trademark licences to independent third parties in other jurisdictions, arguing that those licensing arrangements were not sufficiently comparable.
The tax authorities disallowed both categories of expenses and issued an assessment of additional taxable income. They held that the service contracts lacked specificity, the invoices and documentation were vague and did not establish the actual rendering of services or the benefit to Retail S.A. They further held that the royalties had not been justified as being at arm’s length. In their view “Retail S.A.”’s study was inadequate because it did not consider internal licensing arrangements that could serve as comparables.
In a complaint to the Administrative Tribunal “Retail S.A.” argued that both the service fees and royalties were genuine expenses incurred for the benefit of the enterprise, that they were properly documented, and that the transfer pricing study complied with the OECD Guidelines.
Decision
The Tribunal dismissed the complaint and upheld the assessment issued by the tax authorities disallowing both the management service fees and the royalties.
The Tribunal found that “Retail SA” bears the burden of proving that intragroup service fees are both real and beneficial. In this case the contracts and invoices were vague and failed to demonstrate the nature of the services or their benefit to the applicant. The Court therefore confirmed that the disallowance of the service fees was justified.
It further found that the transfer pricing documentation for the royalties was not sufficient. The company’s refusal to use internal comparables, despite their availability, undermined the credibility of the study and prevented it from demonstrating compliance with the arm’s length principle.
Click here for English translation
Click here for other translation