A Russian subsidiary of the Suzuki/Itochu group had been loss making in 2009.
Following an audit the tax authority concluded, that the losses incurred by the Russian distributor were due to non-arm’s length transfer pricing within the group and excessive deduction of costs.
Decision of the Court
The Court decided in favor of the tax authorities and upheld the assessment.
“In view of the above, the appeal court considers that the courts’ conclusions that the Inspectorate had not proved that it was impossible to apply the first method for determining the market price and that the Inspectorate had incorrectly applied the resale price method were unfounded.”
“In this light, the courts’ conclusions that the Inspectorate incorrectly applied the second method of determining the market price are unfounded.”
“In such circumstances, the Inspectorate’s conclusion on the overstatement of the purchase price of vehicles is based on the application of market data and made in compliance with Article 40 of the Tax Code. The courts had no grounds to satisfy the applicant’s claims for the recognition of the Inspectorate’s decision in this part.”
“The rest of the judicial acts are lawful and justified. In accordance with Article 252 of the Tax Code recognizes expenses reasonable (economically justified) and documented costs, performed (incurred) by the taxpayer. Herewith, any expenses are considered as expenses on condition that they were incurred for the realization of activities aimed at receiving income.”
RUS vs Suzuki A40-111951-2012_20160802