Japan vs Adobe Systems Co., October 2008, Tokyo High Court

Posted on | By Courts of Japan
Category: Burden of Proof, Digital Economy, Limited Risk Distributor, Transfer Pricing Methods | Tag: , , , , ,
« | »

Adobe Systems Co., a Japanese subsidiary of Adobe Systems Inc., received remuneration from Dutch and Irish group companies for promotion and marketing of Adobe software sold in Japan

The remuneration of Adobe Systems Co. was determined as general administrative expenses plus 1.5% of net sales in Japan.

A transfer pricing assessment was issued by the Japanese tax authorities where transfer prices were instead based profit margins derived in comparable transactions.

Adobe Systems filed an appeal seeking revokal of the assessment.

Tokyo High Court held that the tax assessment should be revoked.

The burden of proof in relation to the legitimacy of the transfer pricing method applied was on the tax administration.

The transfer pricing method used by the tax authority was not consistent with the resale price method. The method applied by the tax authorities “…cannot be said to be “a method equivalent to the resale price standard method” prescribed in Article 66-4, Paragraph 2, Item 2, b of the Special Taxation Measures Law. Therefore, in this case, there is illegality in the process of calculating the inter-company price using this calculation method...”

 

Click here for English translation

Related Guidelines

TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.27The resale price method begins with the price at which a product that has been purchased from an associated enterprise is resold to an independent enterprise. This price (the resale price) is then reduced by an appropriate gross margin on this price (the “resale price margin”) representing the amount out...
TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.198In a transfer pricing analysis where the most appropriate transfer pricing method is the resale price method, the cost-plus method, or the transactional net margin method, the less complex of the parties to the controlled transaction is often selected as the tested party. In many cases, an arm’s length price...
TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.199For example, a tested party engaged in the marketing and distribution of goods purchased in controlled transactions may have developed marketing intangibles in its geographic area of operation, including customer lists, customer relationships, and customer data. It may also have developed advantageous logistical know-how or software and other tools that...
TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.12The implication for the behaviour of the tax administration and the taxpayer of the rules governing burden of proof should be taken into account. For example, where as a matter of domestic law the burden of proof is on the tax administration, the taxpayer may not have any legal obligation...
TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.11Like examination practices, the burden of proof rules for tax cases also differ among OECD member countries. In most jurisdictions, the tax administration bears the burden of proof both in its own internal dealings with the taxpayer (e.g. assessment and appeals) and in litigation. In some of these countries, the...
TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.5This section describes three aspects of transfer pricing compliance that should receive special consideration to help tax jurisdictions administer their transfer pricing rules in a manner that is fair to taxpayers and other jurisdictions. While other tax law compliance practices are in common use in OECD member countries – for...
TPG2022 Chapter V paragraph 5.2This chapter provides guidance for tax administrations to take into account in developing rules and/or procedures on documentation to be obtained from taxpayers in connection with a transfer pricing enquiry or risk assessment. It also provides guidance to assist taxpayers in identifying documentation that would be most helpful in showing...
TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.196This section provides supplemental guidance for applying the rules of Chapters I – III in situations where one or both parties to a controlled transaction uses intangibles in connection with the sale of goods or the provision of services, but where no transfer of intangibles or interests in intangibles occurs....
TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.105The need to consider the use of intangibles by a party to a controlled transaction involving a sale of goods can be illustrated as follows. Assume that a car manufacturer uses valuable proprietary patents to manufacture the cars that it then sells to associated distributors. Assume that the patents significantly...
TPG2022 Chapter IX paragraph 9.65In particular, in the case of the conversion of a full-fledged distributor into, for example, a limited risk distributor or commissionnaire, it may be important to examine whether the distributor has developed local marketing intangibles over the years prior to its being restructured and if so, what the nature and...

Supplemental Guidance

Australian Parliament Hearings – Tax AvoidanceIn a public hearing held 22 August 2017 in Sydney Australia by the Economics References Committee, tech companies IBM, Microsoft, and Apple were called to the witnesses stand to explain about tax avoidance schemes – use of “regional headquarters” in low tax jurisdictions (Singapore, Ireland and the Netherlands) to avoid...
Copyright 2025 TPcases