Spain vs. Roche, January 2012, Supreme Court case nr. 1626/2008

« | »

Prior to a business restructuring in 1999, the Spanish subsidiary, Roche Vitaminas S.A., was a full-fledged distributor, involved in manufacturing, importing, and selling the pharmaceutical products in the Spanish and Portuguese markets.

In 1999 the Spanish subsidiary and the Swiss parent, Roche Vitamins Europe Ltd., entered into a manufacturing agreement and a distribution agreement.

Under the manufacturing agreement, the Spanish subsidiary manufactured products  according to directions and using formulas, know-how, patents, and trademarks from the Swiss parent. These manufacturing activities were remunerated at cost plus 3.3 percent.

Under the distribution (agency) agreement, the Spanish subsidiary would “represent, protect and promote” the products. These activities were remunerated at 2 percent of sales.

The Spanish subsidiary was now characterized as a contract manufacturer and commission agent and the taxable profits in Spain were much lower than before the business restructuring.

The Spanish tax authorities argued that the activities constituted a PE in Spain according to article 5 of DTT between Spain and Switzerland. Therefore, part of the profits should be allocated to the Spanish subsidiary in accordance with article 7 of the DTT.

Supreme Court Judgement

The Supreme Court held that the restructured Spanish entity created a PE of Roche Vitamins Europe Ltd. in Switzerland. The profits attributed to the PE included not only the manufacturing profits but also profits from the distribution activity performed on behalf of Roche Vitamins Europe Ltd. in Switzerland.

Excerpts

“The administration is therefore correct in stating that the applicant company operated in Spain by means of a permanent establishment…”

In short, what is laid down in these two paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 7 of the Spanish-Swiss Convention (in summary form) is that:

(a) If a taxpayer acts in a State, of which he is not a resident, through a permanent establishment, then the profits of that taxpayer may be taxed in that State, but only to the extent that such profits are attributable to the said re-establishment.

(b) This means that only the profit that the non-resident would have made in that State if he had had a full presence (as a resident), through a separate and distinct company, will be taxable in that State; but, of course, only in respect of the activity carried out by that establishment.

The Audiencia Nacional, contrary to this reading of Article 7, establishes that if a non-resident company has a permanent establishment, then it must be taxed in the State in which that establishment is located for all the activities carried out in the territory of that State, even if they are not carried out through the permanent establishment.

Contrary to this, and by application of the only possible interpretation of Article 7(1) and (2) (already explained and in accordance with the criteria of the OECD Tax Committee, as we shall see below), a permanent establishment should only be taxed in the State in which it is located on the profit derived from the activity carried out through the permanent establishment.”

“…the sales figure must include all sales made by the permanent establishment. We consider that it is established in the file, contrary to the appellant’s submissions, that those sales must include those made to Portuguese customers, since they were made as a result of the promotional and marketing activities of Roche Vitaminas SA and are therefore attributable to it. It is also common ground that the expenses referred to by the appellant have been taken into account, as is stated in the official document dated 12 July 2002. For the rest, we refer to what was established in the settlement agreement dated 23 April 2003, as well as to the full arguments contained in the judgment under appeal.”

 

Click here for english translation

Click here for other translation

Spain-vs-Roche-Januar-2014-Supreme-Court-case-nr.-1626-2008

TP-Guidelines