TPcases

Database of Transfer Pricing Case Laws

Korea vs HDD Corp, March 2004, Case No 2003서2424

Posted on March 2, 2004 | By Courts of Korea

« Prev | Next »

In this case, the court states that “Even if the price is applied in transactions with foreign related parties, if the transaction is conducted at a price that is considered to be applied or applied in a normal transaction with a person who is not a related party, the price may be the normal price”

The normal price range should be calculated based on two or more comparable transactions between the persons who have no relation with each other.

Click here for English translation

Related Guidelines

TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.15Following the principles in Chapter I, an uncontrolled transaction is comparable to a controlled transaction (i.e. it is a comparable uncontrolled transaction) for purposes of the CUP method if one of two conditions is met: a) none of the differences (if any) between the transactions being compared or between the...

Iceland vs Íslenska kalkþörungafélagið ehf., February 2026, Court of Appeal, Case No 213/2025Íslenska kalkþörungafélagið ehf. ("the Icelandic Limestone Algae Company") operated a calcified algae factory in Iceland, harvesting seaweed from the seabed, cleaning, drying and exporting it almost entirely to its Irish parent company, Marigot Ltd. Marigot Ltd. further processed the raw material in...

Chile vs Nissan Chile SpA, March 2026, Tax Court, Case No RUC 20-9-0000334-0Nissan Chile SpA, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. (Japan), was incorporated in Chile in August 2014 to take over the direct distribution of Nissan-branded vehicles and spare parts previously handled by an independent distributor, Distribuidora Automotriz Marubeni Limitada. Operati...

OECD COVID-19 TPG paragraph 83For example, as government assistance and the specific circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic may vary across different markets, it may affect the comparables and the arm’s length prices of uncontrolled transactions in different ways.39 For instance, assume Company D, a member of an MNE group, provides manufacturing services and receives...

TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.17In considering whether controlled and uncontrolled transactions are comparable, regard should be had to the effect on price of broader business functions other than just product comparability (i.e. factors relevant to determining comparability under Chapter I). Where differences exist between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions or between the enterprises undertaking...

TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.16It may be difficult to find a transaction between independent enterprises that is similar enough to a controlled transaction such that no differences have a material effect on price. For example, a minor difference in the property transferred in the controlled and uncontrolled transactions could materially affect the price even...

TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.11It is not possible to provide specific rules that will cover every case. Tax administrators should hesitate from making minor or marginal adjustments. In general, the parties should attempt to reach a reasonable accommodation keeping in mind the imprecision of the various methods and the preference for higher degrees of...

TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.202It is appropriate for both taxpayers and tax administrations to exercise restraint in rejecting potential comparables based on the use of intangibles by either the parties to potentially comparable transactions or by the tested party. Potential comparables should generally not be rejected on the basis of the asserted existence of...

TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.129The principles of paragraphs 3.47 to 3.54 relating to comparability adjustments apply with respect to transactions involving the transfer of intangibles or rights in intangibles. It is important to note that differences between intangibles can have significant economic consequences that may be difficult to adjust for in a reliable manner....

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.95Whereas it is unlikely that an MNE group’s average interest rate paid on its external debt meets the comparability requirements to be considered as an internal CUP, it may be possible to identify potential comparable loans within the borrower’s or its MNE group’s financing with an independent lender as the...

Supplemental Guidance

Korea vs Defence Corp, March 2006, Supreme Court, Case No 2004두4239A Korean company challenged tax assessments where authorities applied the transactional net margin method using transactions with materially different terms and conditions. The Korean Supreme Court held in 2006 that TNMM may only be applied when conventional methods such as CUP cannot be used due to lack of comparables, and...

Korea vs Corp, October 2001, Supreme Court, Case No 99두3423A Korean taxpayer disputed the tax authority's use of international transactions as comparables in a transfer pricing assessment. The Supreme Court of Korea, ruling in October 2001, confirmed that international transactions are permissible comparables for pricing domestic transactions under the CUP method, upholding the tax authority's position and clarifying the...

Korea vs MedImpo Corp, August 2004, Tax Tribunal, Case No 심사법인 2003-0076A Korean pharmaceutical importer purchased medicines from foreign related parties and sold them domestically. The tax authority applied the resale price method using transactions between unrelated local companies to establish the normal price. The taxpayer challenged the comparability of the selected transactions, arguing cross-border related-party dealings were distinct. The Korean...

UK vs. DSG Retail (Dixon case), First-Tier Tax Tribunal, Case No. UKFT 31DSG Retail structured extended warranty insurance through a captive reinsurer in the Isle of Man. HMRC challenged the level of sales and profit commissions paid to DSG entities. The UK First-Tier Tax Tribunal found transfer pricing legislation applied broadly despite third-party involvement, rejected the taxpayer's proposed benchmarks due to comparability...

Australia vs. Chevron Australia Holdings Pty Ltd, October 2015, Federal Court of Australia, [2015] FCA 1092Chevron Australia borrowed funds from a US shell subsidiary at 8.9% interest, while that entity borrowed commercially at 1.2%, reducing Australian taxable profits via inflated costs. The Australian Tax Office challenged the interest rate as exceeding the arm's length price. Australia's Federal Court ruled in favour of the tax authority...

Australia vs SNF, June 2011, Full Federal Court, Case [2011] FCAFC 74An Australian subsidiary of a French polyacrylamide group reported consistent tax losses from 1990 to 2004, prompting the Commissioner to issue transfer pricing adjustments under Division 13 for years 1997 to 2003. The Commissioner argued no independent distributor would sustain 13 years of losses for an unrelated supplier's benefit. The...

France vs. Sté Amycel France, 16 March 2016, CE, No 372372),A French company sold goods to both related-party distributors and unrelated end customers. The tax authority used the third-party sales as an internal comparable to challenge intra-group pricing. The French Council of State ruled in favour of the taxpayer in 2016, finding the comparison inappropriate because the contractual relationships differed...

US vs Medtronic, August 2018, U.S. Court of Appeals, Case No: 17-1866The IRS challenged Medtronic's use of the comparable uncontrolled transaction method to price intercompany licensing agreements between its US operations and its Puerto Rico manufacturer. The Tax Court had accepted the Pacesetter agreement as the best CUT, but the US Court of Appeals vacated that decision in 2018, finding the...

TPcases

Korea vs HDD Corp, March 2004, Case No 2003서2424

Related Guidelines

Supplemental Guidance

Related Case Law