Tag: Conoco-Philips

Canada vs Cameco, November 2017, Pending case – C$2.2bn in taxes

Several mining companies are beeing audited by the Canadian Revenue Agency for aggressive tax planning and tax evasion schemes. Among the high-profile companies that have filed pleadings with the Canadian Tax Court are Cameco, Silver Wheaton, Burlington Resources, Conoco Funding Company and Suncor Energy. The CRA says, the companies inappropriately ran international transactions through subsidiary companies in low-tax foreign jurisdictions. In the Cameco case the Revenue Agency has audited years 2003 to 2015 and challenged Cameco Canada’s arrangements with a Swiss subsidiary. Cameco sells uranium to its marketing subsidiary in Switzerland, which re-sells it to buyers, incurring less tax than the company would through its Canadian office. The CRA position is that Cameco Canada was in fact carrying the uranium business – not Swiss Cameco subsidiary. The total tax bill for the 13 years: $2.1-billion, plus interest and penalties. Three tax years are currently being tried in the tax court, where a final decision is expected in late 2018 or ... Continue to full case
Norway vs. ConocoPhillips, October 2016, Supreme Court HR-2016-988-A, Case No. 2015/1044)

Norway vs. ConocoPhillips, October 2016, Supreme Court HR-2016-988-A, Case No. 2015/1044)

A tax assessments based on anti-avoidance doctrine “gjennomskjæring” were set aside. The case dealt with the benefits of a multi-currency cash pool arrangement. The court held that the decisive question was whether the allocation of the benefits was done at arm’s length. The court dismissed the argument that the benefits should accure to the parent company as only common control between the parties which should be disregarded. The other circumstances regarding the actual transaction should be recognized when pricing the transaction. In order to achieve an arm’s length price, the comparison must take into account all characteristics of the controlled transaction except the parties’ association with each other. While the case was before the Supreme Court, the Oil Tax Board made a new amendment decision, which also included a tax assessment for 2002. This amendment, which was based on the same anti-avoidance considerations, was on its own to the company’s advantage. Following the Supreme Court judgment, a new amended decision was made in 2009, which reversed the anti-avoidance decision for all three years ... Continue to full case