Tag: Controlling relationship

Legal test determining whether two parties are related for transfer pricing purposes, requiring proof of decisive influence or control over decision-making. Tax authorities challenge whether shareholding, directorship, or shared governance constitutes a controlling relationship triggering arm’s length obligations.

France vs SA Tropicana Europe Hermes, August 2022, CAA of DOUAI, Case No. 20DA01106

France vs SA Tropicana Europe Hermes, August 2022, CAA of DOUAI, Case No. 20DA01106

SA Tropicana Europe's French permanent establishment was converted from a full-fledged manufacturer to a limited-risk contract manufacturer in 2009. French tax authorities challenged the restructuring as an abnormal act of management and issued reassessments for 2010–2013. The Administrative Court set aside the assessments, and the Douai Court of Administrative Appeal upheld that decision in favour of the taxpayer in August 2022 ... Read more
Latvia vs SIA „Woodison Terminal”, June 2018, Supreme Court, A420437112, SKA-97/2018

Latvia vs SIA „Woodison Terminal”, June 2018, Supreme Court, A420437112, SKA-97/2018

A Latvian company faced a tax authority challenge over whether equal shareholder influence constituted joint control triggering transfer pricing rules under Section 12(2) of the Corporate Income Tax Act. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the taxpayer, finding that equal influence does not automatically imply decisive influence or joint control, and that specific circumstances must be identified to establish concerted action ... Read more
Italy vs Veneto Banca, July 2017, Regional Tax Court, Case No 2691/2017

Italy vs Veneto Banca, July 2017, Regional Tax Court, Case No 2691/2017

An Italian bank paid interest on a bond subscribed by an Irish group entity, with a spread two points above market. Tax authorities disallowed the excess under IRAP rules, extending Article 11(7) TUIR via Law 147/13. The bank challenged the assessment on grounds of no controlling relationship at issuance and unconstitutional retroactivity. Italy's Regional Tax Court dismissed the appeal and ruled mostly in favour of the tax authority in 2017 ... Read more
Latvia vs SIA „NET Komunikācijas”, March 2014, Supreme Court, A42994709, SKA-80/2014

Latvia vs SIA „NET Komunikācijas”, March 2014, Supreme Court, A42994709, SKA-80/2014

A Latvian company's director, holding 25% of shares alongside his mother's 75%, was challenged by tax authorities over a related-party real estate transaction. The Supreme Court found the director lacked decisive influence over the company and was therefore not a related party. The court also assessed the quality of comparable transactions used to determine the apartment's market price, partially upholding and partially dismissing the taxpayer's appeal ... Read more