Tag: Commodity exchange prices

Publicly quoted prices on recognised commodity exchanges used as CUP benchmarks for raw materials, agricultural goods, and energy. Tax authorities challenge whether the correct quotation date, grade, and delivery terms were applied, per OECD TPG Chapter II guidance on CUP adjustments.

Romania vs "A Sugar Distributor S.A.", January 2024, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 530/2024

Romania vs “A Sugar Distributor S.A.”, January 2024, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 530/2024

A Romanian sugar distributor was audited over intra-group raw sugar purchases priced against New York commodity exchange quotes and retailer-invoiced service deductions. The Court of Appeal partly annulled the assessment, finding commodity exchange prices inappropriate as CUP comparables and the services deductible. Romania's Supreme Administrative Court dismissed both parties' appeals in January 2024, confirming the lower court's findings ... Read more
Ukrain vs PJSC Odesa Port Plant, October 2023, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 826/14873/17

Ukrain vs PJSC Odesa Port Plant, October 2023, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 826/14873/17

Following a tax audit of PJSC Odesa Port Plant covering controlled transactions on mineral fertiliser exports to Swiss and other non-resident trading companies, Ukraine's tax authority challenged the use of the net profit method, arguing the comparable uncontrolled price method should have applied. The Supreme Administrative Court, in October 2023, remanded the case for reexamination, leaving the transfer pricing method dispute unresolved ... Read more
Panama vs Banana S.A., June 2023, Administrative Tribunal, Case No TAT-RF-048

Panama vs Banana S.A., June 2023, Administrative Tribunal, Case No TAT-RF-048

A Panamanian banana exporter priced related-party sales using TNMM and adjusted its negative ROTC of -1.83% upward by adding unearned insurance income from storm damage. The tax authority rejected both the method and the adjustment, applying the CUP method using quoted commodity prices and issuing an assessment of over B/. 20 million. Panama's Administrative Tribunal upheld the authority, ruling the unearned income adjustment was impermissible ... Read more
Norway vs Pgnig Upstream Norway AS, March 2023, Court of Appeal, Case No LB-2022-52192

Norway vs Pgnig Upstream Norway AS, March 2023, Court of Appeal, Case No LB-2022-52192

A Norwegian oil and gas company sold dry gas to its sister company at prices the tax authority deemed below arm's length. The Court of Appeal upheld the additional income assessment in 2023, finding an imbalance in functional profiles between the related parties. The seller had indirectly absorbed the buyer's downside risk without sharing in potential upside profits, confirming the tax authority's arm's length adjustment under Section 13-1 of the Tax Act ... Read more
Ukrain vs Totland LLC, November 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 580/2610/19

Ukrain vs Totland LLC, November 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 580/2610/19

Following a tax audit of controlled commodity transactions in 2013 and 2015, Ukrainian tax authorities assessed additional income tax against Totland LLC, arguing prices were understated. The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the authorities' appeal in November 2021, upholding the Court of Appeal's finding that uncontrolled transactions used as comparables were not comparable, as the exchange prices applied predated the controlled transactions by a decade ... Read more
Bulgaria vs Maxilari EOOD, May 2020, Supreme Administrative Court Case no 5499 (2524/2020)

Bulgaria vs Maxilari EOOD, May 2020, Supreme Administrative Court Case no 5499 (2524/2020)

A Bulgarian company importing and selling mushrooms to related parties was assessed by tax authorities using the CUP method, referencing commodity exchange prices as market benchmarks. The Administrative Court upheld the assessment, but the Supreme Administrative Court overturned it in 2020, finding the comparability analysis defective and ruling in favour of the taxpayer ... Read more
Russia vs RIF Trading House, April 2019, Moscow City Court, Case No. No.  A40-241020/18

Russia vs RIF Trading House, April 2019, Moscow City Court, Case No. No. A40-241020/18

A Russian trading house exported agricultural commodities including wheat, barley, corn and peas to a related UAE trader at artificially low prices, without disclosing the relationship or providing transfer pricing documentation. The Russian Federal Tax Service conducted an independent analysis using Platts and ICAR commodity exchange prices, applying combined pricing methods and adjustments. The Moscow City Court ruled in favour of the tax authority in 2019 ... Read more