Tag: Cost plus method

The cost plus method is a transfer pricing method using the costs incurred by the supplier of property (or services) in a controlled transaction. An appropriate cost plus mark up is added to this cost, to make an appropriate profit in light of the functions performed (taking into account assets used and risks assumed) and the market conditions. What is arrived at after adding the cost plus mark up to the above costs may be regarded as an arm’s length price of the original controlled transaction.

Israel vs Broadcom, December 2019, Lod District Court, Case No 26342-01-16

Israel vs Broadcom, December 2019, Lod District Court, Case No 26342-01-16

Broadcom Semiconductors Ltd is an Israeli company established in 2001 under the name Dune Semiconductors Ltd. The Company is engaged in development, production, and sale of components to routers, switches etc. The shares in Dune Semiconductors were acquired by the Broadcom Corporation (a US group) in 2009 and following the acquisition intellectual property was transferred to the new Parent for a sum of USD 17 million. The company also entered into tree agreements to provide marketing and support services to a related Broadcom affiliate under a cost+10%, to provide development services to a related Broadcom affiliate for cost+8%, and a license agreement to use Broadcom Israel’s intellectual property for royalties of approximately 14% of the affiliate’s turnover. The tax authorities argued that functions, assets, and risks had been transferred leaving only an empty shell in Israel and a tax assessment was issued based on the purchase price for the shares resulting in USD 29 million in additional taxes. According to the company ... Continue to full case
France vs Philips, September 2018, Conseil d’État, Case No 405779

France vs Philips, September 2018, Conseil d’État, Case No 405779

Philips France SAS provides contract R&D to it’s Dutch parent. Compensation for the service was calculated as cost plus 10%. In the years 2003 to 2007 Philips France received government subsidies for performing R&D. These subsidies had been deducted by the company from the cost base before calculating of the cost plus remuneration. The French tax authorities issued a tax assessment where the deduction was denied and the remuneration calculated on the full cost base. The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that a deduction of subsidies from the cost base does not constitute a “transfer of profits abroad” and allowed the reduced cost base for calculation of the arm’s length remuneration.  Click here for translation CÉt_8ème_-_3ème_chambres_réunies_19_09_2018_405779 ... Continue to full case
France vs GE Healthcare Clinical Systems, June 2018, CE n° 409645

France vs GE Healthcare Clinical Systems, June 2018, CE n° 409645

In this case, the French tax authorities questioned the method implemented by GE Healthcare Clinical Systems to determine the purchase price of the equipment it was purchasing from other General Electric subsidiaries in the United States, Germany and Finland for distribution in France. The method used by the GE Group for determining the transfer prices was to apply a margin of 5% to all direct and indirect production costs borne by the foreign group suppliers. For the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 the tax authorities applied a TNM-method based on a study of twenty-six comparable companies. The operating results of GE Healthcare France was then determined by multiplying the median value of the ratio “operating result/turnover” from the benchmark study to the turnover in GE Healthcare Clinical Systems. The additional profit was declared and qualified as constituting an indirect transfer of profits to the related party suppliers in the General Electric Group. The GE Group disagreed and brought the case ... Continue to full case
Israel vs Kontera and Finisar, April 2018, Supreme Court, Case No. 943/16

Israel vs Kontera and Finisar, April 2018, Supreme Court, Case No. 943/16

In these two cases from Israel the Supreme Court rules on the issue of whether or not companies using the cost plus method must include stock-based compensation in the cost base. The Court concludes that stock-based compensation is an integral part of the compensation package of the Israeli subsidiaries’ employees with the objective of improving the quality of services rendered and strengthening the bond between the companies’ and employees’ cohesive goals. Therefore, such compensation should be included in the cost base. The Court also addressed the burden of proof in relation to transfer pricing disputes in Israel. Section 85 A (c) (2) provides that the burden of proof is with the tax authority if the taxpayer have submitted all required documentation, including a transfer pricing study, that “adequately substantiate” intercompany prices to be in accordance with arm’s length principle ... Continue to full case
Netherlands vs Restructuring BV, September 2017, Rechtbank ZWB, No BRE 15/5683

Netherlands vs Restructuring BV, September 2017, Rechtbank ZWB, No BRE 15/5683

A Dutch company was engaged in smelting of zinc. The business was then restructured, for which the company received a small compensation payment. Dutch tax authorities disagreed with both the amount of compensation payment and the arm’s-length remuneration of the post restructuring manufacturing activities. Until 2003 the Dutch Company was a fully fledged business. The company owned the assets and controlled the risks relating to the activities. In the years after 2003, the company was involved in several business restructurings: Activities other than the actual production activities were gradually transferred to other group companies, among others the global marketing and services team (GMS), took over purchasing, sales and deployment of personnel. After becoming part of another group in 2007, the company entered a consultancy agreement with another group company under witch strategic and business development, marketing, sales, finance, legal support, IT, staffing and environmental services was now provided on a cost plus 7.5% basis. Under ‘Project X’, a Belgian company was established in April 2009, which concluded both a business transfer agreement and a cooperation agreement with related smelting companies ... Continue to full case
Germany vs X Sub GmbH, December 2016, Münster Fiscal Court, Case No 13 K 4037/13 K,F

Germany vs X Sub GmbH, December 2016, Münster Fiscal Court, Case No 13 K 4037/13 K,F

X Sub GmbH is a German subsidiary of a multinational group. The parent company Y Par B.V. and the financial hub of the group Z Fin B.V. – a sister company to the German subsidiary – are both located in the Netherlands. In its function as a financial hub, Z Fin B.V granted several loans to X Sub GmbH. As part of a tax audit, the German tax authority considered that the interest on the inter-company loans paid by X Sub GmbH to Z Fin B.V. was too high. In order to determine the arm’s length interest rate, X Sub GmbH had applied the CUP method. The tax authority instead applied the cost plus method and issued an assessment. X Sub GmbH filed an appeal to Münster Fiscal Court. The Court found that the cost plus method was justly chosen by the tax authority, as the external CUPs could not be used because of differences in conditions between the uncontrolled ... Continue to full case
Netherland vs. X BV, March 2007, District Court of Arnhem, Case No ECLI:NL:RBARN:2007:BA0339

Netherland vs. X BV, March 2007, District Court of Arnhem, Case No ECLI:NL:RBARN:2007:BA0339

X BV in the Netherlands was a wholesaler in garden related (gift) articles. Customers are located in the Netherlands and abroad (especially in Western Europe, the United States and Canada). Procurement of the products is mainly done in China. Delivery of the products is made directly by the producer to [X] BV or to its other clients. As compensation for procurement activities performed by the [X Limited] in Hong Kong, X group BV pays a 10% surcharge on the purchase price paid by [X Limited] to its Chinese suppliers. This surcharge is passed on in the cost price of the products. The tax administration held that the compensation [X Limited] receives for its procurement activities is (much) too high. The District Court disagreed and decided in favor of X Group BV. Click here for translation Netherland vs BV 2007 ... Continue to full case
Kenya vs Unilever Kenya Ltd, October 2005, High Court of Kenya, Case no. 753 of 2003

Kenya vs Unilever Kenya Ltd, October 2005, High Court of Kenya, Case no. 753 of 2003

Unilever Kenya Limited (UKL) is engaged in the manufacture and sale of various household goods including foods, detergents and personal care items. UKL is a part of the world-wide Unilever group of companies. Unilever plc., a company incorporated in the United Kingdom has a very substantial shareholding in the UKL. UKL and Unilever Uganda Limited (UUL) are related companies. In august 1995 UKL and UUL entered into a contract whereby UKL was to manufacture on behalf of UUL and to supply to UUL such products as UUL required in accordance with orders issued by UUL. UKL supplied such products to UUL during the years 1995 and 1996.  UKL manufactured and sold goods to the Kenyan domestic market and export market, to customers not related to UKL. The prices charged by UKL for identical goods in domestic export sales were different from those charged by it for local domestic sales. The prices charged by UKL to UUL differed from both the above sales ... Continue to full case