The case concerns “Tobacco BV”, a Dutch company that is part of an international group. Tobacco BV entered into a factoring arrangement with an affiliated entity based in a low-tax jurisdiction. Under this arrangement, Tobacco BV transferred its receivables to the affiliate in exchange for factoring fees.
The tax authorities challenged the arrangement, arguing that the fees and payments reduced the Dutch taxable base and shifted profits to a low-tax country.
Tobacco BV defended the arrangement by submitting transfer pricing documentation and comparability studies to demonstrate that the factoring fees were consistent with the arm’s length principle. The Amsterdam Court of Appeal accepted this defence and ruled in favour of Tobacco BV, holding that the company had sufficiently demonstrated that the agreement was commercially justifiable and aligned with arm’s length conditions.
The tax authorities then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Judgment
The Supreme Court therefore annulled the Court of Appeal’s decision and referred the case back to a different Court of Appeal for reconsideration of the transfer pricing of the factoring arrangement and the payments to the low-tax affiliate.
The Court held that the Court of Appeal had provided insufficient reasoning. It had not adequately addressed the tax authorities’ objections regarding the comparability of the data, the allocation of risks and the lack of clear business motives beyond tax benefits.
The Court emphasised that judicial review of transfer pricing cases must involve a thorough examination of the reliability of benchmarks and the commercial substance of intragroup arrangements, particularly when payments are made to low-tax jurisdictions.
Click here for English Translation
Click here for other translation