Tag: CUP method

The CUP methos is a transfer pricing method that compares the price for property or services transferred in a controlled transaction to the price charged for property or services transferred in a comparable uncontrolled transaction in comparable circumstances.

European Commission vs. Luxembourg and Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe, September 2019, General Court of the European Union, Case No. T-755/15

European Commission vs. Luxembourg and Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe, September 2019, General Court of the European Union, Case No. T-755/15

On 3 September 2012, the Luxembourg tax authorities issued a tax ruling in favour of Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe (‘FFT’), an undertaking in the Fiat group that provided treasury and financing services to the group companies established in Europe. The tax ruling at issue endorsed a method for determining FFT’s remuneration for these services, which enabled FFT to determine its taxable profit on a yearly basis for corporate income tax in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. In 2015, the Commission concluded that the tax ruling constituted State aid under Article 107 TFEU and that it was operating aid that was incompatible with the internal market. It also noted that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg had not notified it of the proposed tax ruling and had not complied with the standstill obligation. The Commission found that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was required to recover the unlawful and incompatible aid from FFT. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and FFT each brought ... Continue to full case
European Commission vs. The Netherlands and Starbucks, September 2019, General Court of the European Union, Case No. T-760/15

European Commission vs. The Netherlands and Starbucks, September 2019, General Court of the European Union, Case No. T-760/15

In 2008, the Netherlands tax authorities concluded an advance pricing arrangement (APA) with Starbucks Manufacturing EMEA BV (Starbucks BV), part of the Starbucks group, which, inter alia, roasts coffees. The objective of that arrangement was to determine Starbucks BV’s remuneration for its production and distribution activities within the group. Thereafter, Starbucks BV’s remuneration served to determine annually its taxable profit on the basis of Netherlands corporate income tax. In addition, the APA endorsed the amount of the royalty paid by Starbucks BV to Alki, another entity of the same group, for the use of Starbucks’ roasting IP. More specifically, the APA provided that the amount of the royalty to be paid to Alki corresponded to Starbucks BV’s residual profit. The amount was determined by deducting Starbucks BV’s remuneration, calculated in accordance with the APA, from Starbucks BV’s operating profit. In 2015, the Commission found that the APA constituted aid incompatible with the internal market and ordered the recovery of that ... Continue to full case
Denmark vs MAN Energy Solutions, September 2019, Supreme Court, Case No BS-4280-2019-HJR

Denmark vs MAN Energy Solutions, September 2019, Supreme Court, Case No BS-4280-2019-HJR

A Danish subsidiary in the German MAN group was the owner of certain intangible assets. The German parent, acting as an intermediate for the Danish subsidiary, licensed rights in those intangibles to other parties. In 2002-2005, the Danish subsidiary received royalty payments corresponding to the prices agreed between the German parent company and independent parties for use of the intangibles. The group had requested an adjustment of the royalty payments to the Danish subsidiary due to withholding taxes paid on inter-company license fees received by the German Parent. This was rejected by the Danish tax authorities. The Supreme Court found no basis for an adjustment for withholding taxes as the agreed prices between the German parent and the Danish Subsidiary matched the market price paid by independent parties. Click here for translation Denmark vs MAN Energy Solutions, September 2019, Supreme Court, Case No BS-4280-2019-HJR ... Continue to full case
Finland vs A Group, December 2018, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. KHO:2018:173

Finland vs A Group, December 2018, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. KHO:2018:173

During fiscal years 2006–2008, A-Group had been manufacturing and selling products in the construction industry – insulation and other building components. License fees received by the parent company A OY from the manufacturing companies had been determined by application of the CUP method. The remuneration of the sales companies in the group had been determined by application of the resale price method. The Finnish tax administration, tax tribunal and administrative court all found that the comparable license agreements chosen with regard to determining the intercompany license fees had such differences regarding products, contract terms and market areas that they were incomparable. With regard to the sale of the finished products, they found that the resale price method had not been applied on a sufficiently reliable basis. By reference to the 2010 version of the OECD’s Transfer Pricing Guidelines, they considered the best method for determining the arm’s length remuneration of the group companies was the residual profit split method. The ... Continue to full case
Norway vs. A AS, October 2017, Tax Tribunal, NS 71/2017

Norway vs. A AS, October 2017, Tax Tribunal, NS 71/2017

A Norwegian company, A, first acquired shares in Company C from a unrelated party D for tNKR 625. Company A then transferred the acquired shares in C to a subsidiary E, a shell company established by C for the purpose of the transaction. Company A then sold the shares in subsidiary E to the unrelated party D, from which it had originally bought the shares in C, for tNKR 3830, a price almost six times higher than the acquisition price, in a tax free transfer. Based on these facts, the Norwegian tax administration adjusted the price of the intra-group transfer shares in C from A to E. The Norwegian tax tribunal decided that the valuation af the shares in the intra-group transfer could be based on a linear appreciation in the share value. Click here for translation Norway vs AS 27 november 2017 SKATTEKLAGENEMDA NS 71-2017 ... Continue to full case
European Commission vs. The Netherlands and Starbucks, March 2017 and October 2015, State Aid Investigation

European Commission vs. The Netherlands and Starbucks, March 2017 and October 2015, State Aid Investigation

The European Commission’s investigation on granting of selective tax advantages to Starbucks BV, cf. EU state aid rules. EU-vs-Starbucks-March-2017-State-Aid-investigation-2 EU-Starbucks-2015 ... Continue to full case
Spain vs. Schwepps (Citresa), February 2017, Spanish Supreme Court, case nr. 293/2017

Spain vs. Schwepps (Citresa), February 2017, Spanish Supreme Court, case nr. 293/2017

The Spanish Tax administration made an income adjustment of Citresa (a Spanish subsidiary of the Schweeps Group) Corporate Income Tax for FY 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, resulting in a tax liability of €38.6 millon. Citresa entered into a franchise agreement and a contract manufacturing agreement with Schweppes International Limited (a related party resident in the Netherlands). The transactions between the two group companies were not found to be in accordance with the arm’s length principle. The issue under dispute was the use of TNMM introduced in Spain in 2006. The taxpayer had used the CUP method to verify the arm’s length nature of the transaction while the Spanish Tax administration found it more appropriate to use the TNMM. Prior to 1 December 2006, the Spanish Corporate Income Tax Act (CIT) established three methods of pricing related transactions (the “Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method”, the “Cost Plus Method” and the “Resale Price Method”) and if none were applicable it established the application of the “Transactional Profit Split Method” ... Continue to full case
Russia vs Dulisma Oil, January 2017, Russian Court Case No. A40-123426 / 16-140-1066

Russia vs Dulisma Oil, January 2017, Russian Court Case No. A40-123426 / 16-140-1066

This case relates to sales of crude oil from the Russian company, Dulisma Oil,  to an unrelated trading company, Concept Oil Ltd, registered in Hong Kong. The Russian tax authorities found that the price at which oil was sold deviated from quotations published by the Platts price reporting agency. They found that the prices for particular deliveries had been lower than the arm’s length price and issued a tax assessment and penalties of RUB 177 million. Dulisma Oil had set the prices using quotations published by Platts, which is a common practice in crude oil trading. The contract price was determined as the mean of average quotations for Dubai crude on publication days agreed upon by the parties, minus a differential determined before the delivery date “on the basis of the situation prevailing on the market”. Transfer pricing documentation had not been prepared, and the company also failed to explain the method by which the price had been calculated and how the price ... Continue to full case

Venezuela vs. Sodexho, 15. Dec 2016, Tax Court of Caracas

Sodexho Venezuela had appealed an adjustment made under the Venezuelan transfer pricing rules. The tax authorities claimed that the interest rate charged by Sodexho on a loan, made to a related party outside Venezuela, was not at arm’s-length. The tax authorities claimed that when applying the CUP method and comparing the controlled transaction with an uncontrolled transaction, Sodexho Pass Venezuela should have used an active rate such as the prime rate. The tax court ruled that Sodexho had correctly applied the CUP method and therefore cancelled the transfer pricing adjustment ... Continue to full case
France vs. Sté Amycel France, 16 March 2016, CE, No 372372),

France vs. Sté Amycel France, 16 March 2016, CE, No 372372),

In Sté Amycel France the Court held that the Tax Administration must use an “appropriate” comparable when making transfer pricing adjustments. The French company was selling goods to both group companies and unrelated final customers. The tax administration had used a transaction with the third party customers as an internal comparable. However, as the related companies were acting as distributors, the comparison with the pricing applied to a third party customers was considered inappropriate for the purposes of assessing an arm’s length dealing. The court found that the pricing difference actually reflected the fact that the contractual relationship in the two situations was not comparable. Click here for translation France vs Amycel France _16_03_2016_CE no 372372 ... Continue to full case
Canada vs. Marzen Artistic Aluminum. January 2016

Canada vs. Marzen Artistic Aluminum. January 2016

The intercompany transactions at issue involved fees paid to the company’s wholly-owned Barbados based subsidiary during taxation years 2000 and 2001 for sales, marketing and support services. The Tax Court of Canada had determined that it was appropriate to apply the CUP method rather than the TNMM, which was advocated by the company’s expert. Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal upheld the decision by the Tax Court of Canada, which in 2014 ruled that the Canada Revenue Agency had largely been correct in reassessing the taxable income of Marzen Artistic Aluminum Ltd. Canada vs Marzen-v-the-Queen ... Continue to full case
Italy vs. ILPEA SPA, July 2015, Supreme Court 15298

Italy vs. ILPEA SPA, July 2015, Supreme Court 15298

This case is about an Italian company, ILPEA S.p.A, transactions with it’s US subsidiary. The company stated that there were substantial difference between the products sold to its subsidiary in the United States and the benchmark transactions considered by the Tax Administration: quality of the products, volumes of sales, terms of sale. These differences affected the pricing, so that these transactions could not be compared with other transactions with independent parties. The Court found that the transactions carried out with controlled companies must be evaluated according to the “normal value”, defined as the average price charged for similar goods or services with independent parties and at the same marketing stage. Therefore, “normal value” is considered to be the ordinary prices of goods and services charged at arm’s length conditions, referring, as much as possible, to “pricelists” and “rates”. The Court also stated that the tax administration does not have to prove existence of tax evation, but only the existence of ... Continue to full case
Italy vs SAME DEUTZ FAHR ITALIA s.p.a, July 2015, Supreme Court, no 15282

Italy vs SAME DEUTZ FAHR ITALIA s.p.a, July 2015, Supreme Court, no 15282

This case is about methods applicable for determination of “normal value” in transactions between related companies; the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method (CUP). Click here for translation Italy Supreme-Court-21st-July-2015-n.-15282 ... Continue to full case
Canada vs. Skechers USA Canada Inc. March 2015, Federal Court of Appeal

Canada vs. Skechers USA Canada Inc. March 2015, Federal Court of Appeal

In this case the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal in which the tribunal upheld seven decisions – one for each of the years 2005 through 2011 – of the Canada Border Services Agency under subsection 60(4) of Canada’s Customs Act. Skechers Canada, a subsidiary of Skechers USA, purchases footwear to sell in Canada from its parent at a price equal to the price paid by Skechers US to its manufacturers, the cost of shipping the foodware to the US and warehousing, and an arm’s length profit. Skechers Canada also makes payments to Skechers US pursuant to a cost sharing agreement to compensate the parent for activities associated with the development and maintenance of the Skechers brand and to the creation and sale of footwear. The Court ruled that CSA payments relating to research, design, and development (R&D) were “in respect of” the goods sold for export into Canada and thus part of the “price paid or payable” for ... Continue to full case
Italy vs. Solvay s.a., October 2013, Supreme Court, 24005

Italy vs. Solvay s.a., October 2013, Supreme Court, 24005

This case is about transfer pricing methods and the use of the comparable uncontrolled price method. The Supreme Court affirmed that regarding the determination of the normal value of goods and services, the transfer pricing provisions refer to article 9 of the CTA, which recognizes, among the methods proposed by the OECD in the Guidelines, the traditional “comparable uncontrolled price method” Click here for translation Italy Supreme-Court-23-October-2013-No.-24005.pdf ... Continue to full case
Italy vs SGL CARBON SPA, September 2013, Supreme Court 22010

Italy vs SGL CARBON SPA, September 2013, Supreme Court 22010

This case is about arm’s length interest on loans, use of the comparable uncontrolled price method (CUP), and use of internal and external comparables. The Supreme Court stated that the relevant market for comparability is that of the seller. The decision was based on the concept of “normal value” as provided by article 9(3)(4) in the Italien regulations. Reference was made to the part of the definition which states: “In determining normal value, reference must be made – to the extent possible – to price lists or tariffs of the party which has supplied the goods and services or, if necessary, to the indices and price lists of the Chamber of Commerce and to professional tariffs, taking normal discounts into account”. The Court ruled i favor of the Tax administration Click here for translation Italy Supreme-Court-25-September-2013-No.-22010.pdf ... Continue to full case
Portugal vs. Cash Corp, December 2012, Tribunal Case no 55/2012-T

Portugal vs. Cash Corp, December 2012, Tribunal Case no 55/2012-T

This case concerned the 2008 tax year, and the tax-payer was a company resident and incorporated in Portugal and a 100 percent subsidiary of a German company. The tax authorities assessed substantial corporate income tax because of a tax audit. The company claimed that the tax assessment violated the Portuguese transfer pricing regime because the tax authorities assumed that the company had provided a guarantee to its parent company, a related entity. However, according to the company, it could not be said that the subsidiary rendered a guarantee to its parent company under the cash-pooling agreement. The company also argued that the tax authorities were wrong in applying the comparable uncontrolled price method in order to obtain the arm’s-length price under the cash-pooling arrangement. The tax authorities in their answer stated that the contract between the parent and the subsidiary had clauses that deviated from a cash-pooling contract and they believed it should be deemed a mix of different contracts ... Continue to full case
Canada vs. GlaxoSmithKline. October 2012, Supreme Court

Canada vs. GlaxoSmithKline. October 2012, Supreme Court

The Canadian Supreme Court ruled in the case of GlaxoSmithKline Inc. regarding the intercompany prices established in purchases of ranitidine, the active ingredient used in the anti-ulcer drug Zantac, from a related party during years 1990 through 1993. The Supreme Court partially reversed an earlier determination by the Tax Court, upholding a determination by the Federal Court of Appeals in its conclusion that if other transactions are relevant in determining whether transfer prices are reasonable, these transactions should be taken into account. However, the Supreme Court did not determine whether the transfer pricing method used by GlaxoSmithKline Inc. was reasonable, and instead remitted the matter back to the Tax Court. Canada_Glaxo_Supreme-Court ... Continue to full case
India vs. Fulford (India) Limited, July 2011, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

India vs. Fulford (India) Limited, July 2011, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Fulford India Ltd. imported active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) from related group companies and sold them in India. The TNM method was used for determening transfer prices. The tax administration found the CUP method to be the most appropriate. Fulford India argued that the CUP method requires stringent comparability and any differences which could materially affect the price in the open market should be taken into consideration. In the pharmaceutical world, APIs whith similar properties may still be different in relation to quality, efficiancy, impurities etc. Therefore, the two products cannot be compared. In court, it was further explained that Fulford also performed secondary manufacturing functions, converting the APIs into formulations. Hence, Fulford could be descriped as a value added distributor. The Court concluded that the selection of the best method should be based on functional analysis and the characterisation of the transactions and the entities. The fact that Fulford had secondary manufacturing activities had not previously been explained to the ... Continue to full case
Korea vs Pharma Corp, September 2007, Supreme Court, Case No 2007두13913

Korea vs Pharma Corp, September 2007, Supreme Court, Case No 2007두13913

A Korean pharma corporation produced and sold finished pharmaceuticals. Active ingredients were imported from foreign related parties in the United States and Ireland. The Korean pharma corporation produced and sold the original finished products by importing the five original patented raw materials that had expired from the patent period in each business period from December 1, 2001 to November 30. The tax authorities calculated the normal price of the original raw materials by a comparable third party pricing method. As for the specific methodology, the median price of imported generic raw materials for other domestic pharmaceutical companies was calculated by multiplying the ratio between the original product and the medical insurance price of the drug (generic finished product) produced by the domestic generic raw material by other domestic pharmaceutical companies. After calculating the normal price of the raw materials, the difference between the original price of the original raw materials and the difference between the original price and the normal ... Continue to full case