The transaction concerned IKEA Industry Slovakia s. r. o.’s corporate income tax for the 2010–11 period, when the company was operating within the Swedwood group. The company acted as a contract manufacturer, producing furniture and veneer which it mainly sold to related parties within the group based overseas. The tax audit primarily focused on the transfer prices applied to the sale of finished products to related companies, while also reviewing management services, intra-group loans, foreign exchange transactions and material purchases. The decisive adjustment arose from the pricing of products manufactured and sold to related parties, for which the company reported an overall loss.
The tax authorities concluded that the prices applied to sales of finished products to related parties did not comply with the arm’s length principle. Having rejected the comparable uncontrolled price method due to insufficient comparability of the products and conditions, they applied a cost-plus-based approach using the net margin method instead. A benchmarking study based on the Amadeus database was performed to identify comparable contract manufacturers and determine a median profit margin of approximately six percent. As IKEA Industry Slovakia had reported a significant loss, its results fell outside the arm’s length range. The tax authorities therefore increased revenues by applying an arm’s length margin and adjusting the tax base accordingly, resulting in an additional corporate income tax assessment.
IKEA Industry Slovakia challenged the decision, arguing that it had correctly applied the price comparison method to a large proportion of its sales, and that the tax authorities had unreasonably replaced its method with a profit-based approach. The company also argued that the differences identified by the tax authorities were not economically significant and that the losses could be explained by market conditions and the economic crisis. Furthermore, it claimed that the benchmarking analysis and the selected profit margin were inappropriate. The company also argued that its ability to negotiate prices within the group framework was limited.
Judgment
The Administrative Court annulled the decisions of the tax authorities. The court identified deficiencies in the reasoning and assessment of comparability, including the inadequate consideration of the taxpayer’s factual and economic arguments, as well as the broader context of the transactions. The court held that the tax authorities had not adequately substantiated why the applied pricing failed to reflect arm’s length conditions in a manner that justified the specific adjustment made. The case was sent back to the tax administrator for further proceedings, and IKEA Industry Slovakia was awarded full reimbursement of its litigation costs.
Click here for English translation