Tag: Continuous losses

Denmark vs Adecco A/S, Oct 2019, High Court, Case No SKM2019.537.OLR

Denmark vs Adecco A/S, Oct 2019, High Court, Case No SKM2019.537.OLR

The question in this case was whether royalty payments from a loss making Danish subsidiary Adecco A/S (H1 A/S in the decision) to its Swiss parent company Adecco SA (G1 SA in the decision – an international provider of temporary and permanent employment services active throughout the entire range of sectors in Europe, the Americas, the Middle East and Asia – for use of trademarks and trade names, knowhow, international network intangibles, and business concept were deductible expenses for tax purposes or not. In  2013, the Danish tax authorities (SKAT) had amended Adecco A/S’s taxable income for the years 2006-2009 by a total of DKK 82 million. “Section 2 of the Tax Assessment Act. Paragraph 1 states that, when calculating the taxable income, group affiliates must apply prices and terms for commercial or economic transactions in accordance with what could have been agreed if the transactions had been concluded between independent parties. SKAT does not consider it in accordance with section ... Continue to full case
Sweden vs Branch of Yazaki Europe Ltd, October 2019, Court of Appeal, Case No 2552–2555-17, 2557–2558-17, 3422-18

Sweden vs Branch of Yazaki Europe Ltd, October 2019, Court of Appeal, Case No 2552–2555-17, 2557–2558-17, 3422-18

The Swedish Branch of Yazaki Europe Ltd had been heavily lossmaking for more than five years. The Branch only had a limited number of customers in Sweden and where it acted as a simple information exchange provider. The branch had limited risks, as all risk related to R&D functions were located outside Sweden. Excerpt from the Judgement of the Court “…the District Court finds that the branch has had limited opportunities to influence the costs of the products, the choice of suppliers and service providers regarding the development of the products in the projects run in collaboration with the Swedish customers, and price to the customer. Furthermore, the branch has been referred to make purchases in the currencies that result from the group structure. The branch states that…the work done by the branch has been of such scope and importance that significant people functions are to be considered in the branch for virtually all risks that can be associated with ... Continue to full case
Sweden vs Branch of Technology Partners International Europe Ltd, October 2019, Court of Appeal, Case No 3701-18

Sweden vs Branch of Technology Partners International Europe Ltd, October 2019, Court of Appeal, Case No 3701-18

This case is about a loss-making Swedish branch of Technology Partners International Europe Ltd. The branch had no significant people functions but only two employees performing low value-added services. From the Judgement of the Court of Appeal “The distribution of revenue and costs between a British company and its Swedish branch is regulated for the current tax years in Article 7 of the 1983 double taxation agreement with the United Kingdom. Further guidance on the application of this issue can be obtained in the 2008 OECD report on profit allocation. A two-step test according to the so-called functional separate entity approach, as described in the administrative law, must be done. The Court of Appeal agrees, in light of the information provided by the branch during the Swedish Tax Agency’s investigation and because the Nordic manager cannot be linked to the branch, in the administrative court’s assessment that the branch has in the current years lacked so-called significant people functions. Nor ... Continue to full case
Italy vs Lossmaking SpA, September 2019, Lombardi Regional Tribunal, Case No 928/20/2019

Italy vs Lossmaking SpA, September 2019, Lombardi Regional Tribunal, Case No 928/20/2019

An Italian company belonging to a multinational group operating in the pharmaceutical sector, had recorded operating losses for fiscal years 1997 to 2013, while at a consolidated level the Group showed positive results. According to the Italian tax authorities, the reason why the Italian company was still in operation was due to the fact that the group had an interest in keeping an international profile and to that end the Italian company performed marketing activities benefiting the Group. Assessment was issued where the taxable income of the Italian company was added compensation for inter-company marketing services carried out by the Italian company on behalf of the group. The company argued that the pharmaceutical market and the governmental policy on the prices of medicines in Italy was the reason for the losses. In support of this claim the company submitted broad documentary evidence during the audit. The Court held in favor of the taxpayer. The company had demonstrated the reasons for ... Continue to full case
Zambia vs Nestlé Trading Ltd, March 2019, Tax Appeals Tribunal, Case No 2018/TAT/03/DT

Zambia vs Nestlé Trading Ltd, March 2019, Tax Appeals Tribunal, Case No 2018/TAT/03/DT

Nestlé Zambia had reported continuous losses for more than five years. Following an Transfer Pricing audit covering years 2010 – 2014, the tax administration  issued an assessment whereby profits were adjusted to ZMW 56,579,048 resulting in additional taxes of ZMW13,860,103 plus penalties and other levies. The assessment was based on Nestlé Zambia being characterised as a limited risk distributor instead of a full fledged dristributor. Nestlé  Zambia held that the tax administrations characterisation of the entity as a limited risk distributor was incorrect and that the assessment had not been performed in accordance with the arm’s length principle.  The Tribunal ruled in favor of Nestlé, except for it’s position on the characterisation of the entity as a limited risk distributor (ground four cf. the excerp below). “The summary of our findings is  that  there  was  basis  for  initiating  a  transfer pricing audit in this case because as has been stated in  Paragraph  1.129  of  the OECD Guidelines that, “When an associated enterprise ... Continue to full case
Finland vs Loss Corp, December 2017, Administrative Court, Case no 17/0979/4

Finland vs Loss Corp, December 2017, Administrative Court, Case no 17/0979/4

The Finnish tax authorities had made a transfer pricing adjustment to a Finnish marketing and sales subsidiary with continuous losses. The tax authorities had identified a “hidden” services transaction between the Finnish subsidiary and an unidentified foreign group company. The Administrative Court ruled in favor of the tax authorities. The adjustment was not considered by the Court as a recharacterisation. Reference was made to TPG 2010, paragraphs 1.34, 1.42 to 1.49, 1.64, 1.65 and 1.70 to 1.72 Click here for translation Finland vs Loss Corp 29 December 2017 Administrative Court 17-0979-4 ... Continue to full case
Zimbabwe vs CRS (Pvt) Ltd, October 2017, High Court, HH 728-17 FA 20/2014

Zimbabwe vs CRS (Pvt) Ltd, October 2017, High Court, HH 728-17 FA 20/2014

The issue in this case was whether tax administration could tax a “non-existent income” through the “deeming provisions” of s 98 of Zimbabwe’s Income Tax Act. A lease agreement and a separate logistical agreement had been entered by CRS Ltd and a related South African company, for the lease of its mechanical trucks, trailers and tankers for a fixed rental. The tax payer contended that the rentals in the agreements were fair and reasonable. The tax administration contended that they were outrageously low so as to constitute under invoicing and tax avoidance. The court ruled in favor of the tax administration. Excerps from the Judgement: “Where any transaction, operation or scheme (including a transaction, operation or scheme involving the alienation of property) has been entered into or carried out, which has the effect of avoiding or postponing liability for any tax or of reducing the amount of such liability, and which in the opinion of the Commissioner, having regard to the circumstances ... Continue to full case
Germany vs Loss Destributor GmbH, April 2005, Bundesfinanzhof, I R 22/04

Germany vs Loss Destributor GmbH, April 2005, Bundesfinanzhof, I R 22/04

In this case, the Tax Court confirmed that losses incurred by a simpel distribution entity over a longer period of time trigger a rebuttable presumption in Germany that transfer prices have not been at arm’s length. A German company, Loss Destributor GmbH, imported goods from their Swiss sister company S-AG and had made continious losses over a period of time. The tax authorities found that the purchase prices paid to the S-AG had increased since 1989 and that the German company could not fully pass on the price increases to its customers. Since at the same time the price of the Swiss franc had fallen since 1989, the purchase prices paid to the S-AG in the years of the dispute had been inflated and currency gains had been transferred to Switzerland in this way. A tax assessment was therefor issued. The German company appeal the assessment to the Tax Court. The Federal Tax Court ruled in favor of the tax authorities. Click here for translation Bundesfinanzhof ... Continue to full case
Germany vs Clothing Distribution Gmbh, October 2001, BFH Urt. 17.10.2001, IR 103/00

Germany vs Clothing Distribution Gmbh, October 2001, BFH Urt. 17.10.2001, IR 103/00

A German GmbH distributed clothing for its Italian parent. The German tax authorities issued a tax assessment based on hidden profit distribution from the German GmbH in favor of its Italien parent as a result of excessive purchase prices, which led to high and continuous losses in Germany.  The tax authorities determined the arm’s length price based on purchase prices, which the German GmbH had paid to external suppliers. However, these purchases accounted for only 5% of the turnover. The German Tax Court affirmed in substance a vGA (hidden profit distribution) as the tax authorities had provided no proff of deviation from arm’s length prices. If a hidden profit distribution is to be accepted, the profit shall be increased by the difference between the actually agreed price and the price agreed by independent contractual parties under similar circumstances – the arm’s length price. Where a range of arm’s length prices is produced, there are no legal basis for adjustment to the ... Continue to full case