Tag: CUP

Norway vs Normet Norway AS, March 2019, Borgarting Lagmannsrett, Case No 2017-202539

Norway vs Normet Norway AS, March 2019, Borgarting Lagmannsrett, Case No 2017-202539

In January 2013 the Swiss company Normet International Ltd acquired all the shares in the Norwegian company Dynamic Rock Support AS (now Normet Norway AS) for a price of NOK 78 million. In February 2013 all intangibles in Dynamic Rock Support AS was transfered to Normet International Ltd for a total sum of NOK 3.666.140. The Norwegian tax authorities issued an assessment where the arm’s length value of the intangibles was set at NOK 58.2 million. The Court of Appeal upheld the tax assessment issued by the tax authorities and rejected the appeal. Click here for translation Norway vs Normet 190319 ... Continue to full case
Russia vs Togliattiazot, September 2018, Russian Arbitration Court, Case No. No. А55-1621 / 2018

Russia vs Togliattiazot, September 2018, Russian Arbitration Court, Case No. No. А55-1621 / 2018

A Russian company, Togliattiazot, supplied ammonia to the external market through a Swiss trading hub, Nitrochem Distribution AG. The tax authority found that the selling price of the ammonia to Nitrochem Distribution AG had not been determined by Togliattiazot in accordance with the arm’s length principle but had been to low. Hence, a transfer pricing assessment was issued where the CUP method was applied. At first, the company argued that Togliattiazot and Nitrochem Distribution AG were not even affiliates. Later, the company argued that transfer prices had been determined in accordance with the TNM-method. The court ruled in favor of the Russian tax authority. Based on information gathered by the tax authorities – SPARK-Interfax and Orbis Bureau Van Djik bases, Switzerland’s trade register, Internet sites, and e-mail correspondence etc – the tax authorities were able to prove in court, the presence of actual control between Togliattiazot and Nitrochem. The TNMM method applied by Togliattiazot was rejected by the court because ... Continue to full case
India vs Amphenol Interconnect India (Private) Ltd., March 2018, Bombay High Court, case no. 536

India vs Amphenol Interconnect India (Private) Ltd., March 2018, Bombay High Court, case no. 536

In the case of Amphenol Interconnect the issue was whether two transactions – the resale of goods and sales assistance services for a commission – could be aggregated for transfer pricing purposes and whether the CUP or the TNM was the most appropriate transfer pricing method. The court found that that the CUP Method could not be used for the buy/sell transaction because of differences in location, volumes and customisation. The transactions could be aggregated and benchmarked together using the TNM Method. India vs Amphenol-Transfer-Pricing-CUP-TNMM ... Continue to full case
Tokyo District Court, judgment of November 24 2017

Tokyo District Court, judgment of November 24 2017

A Japanese company had entered into a series of controlled transactions with foreing group companies granting services and licences to use intangibles – know-how related to manufacturing and sales, training, and provided support by sending over technical experts. The company had used a CUP method to price these transactions based on select “internal comparables”. Tax authorities disagreed with the company and found that the residual profit split method should be applied to price the transactions. The court found the transactions should be aggregated and that the price should be determined for the full packaged deal – not separately for each transaction. The foreign related-party transactions were compared – as a whole – to the comparable transactions selected by the company and the court found that the product lines, how to use them and frequency of dispatching employees to support the foreing group company were not comparable. This could have resulted in differences the value of the intangibles and services provided ... Continue to full case
Russia vs Uralkaliy PAO, July 2017, Moscow Arbitration Court, Case No. A40-29025/17-75-227

Russia vs Uralkaliy PAO, July 2017, Moscow Arbitration Court, Case No. A40-29025/17-75-227

A Russian company, Uralkaliy PAO, sold potassium chloride to a related trading company in Switzerland , Uralkali Trading SA. Following an audit, the Russian tax authority concluded that Uralkaliy PAO had set the prices at an artificially low level. A decision was therefore issued, ordering the taxpayer to pay an additional tax of 980 million roubles and a penalty of 3 million roubles. Uralkaly PAO had used the transactional net margin method (TNMM). The reasons given for not using the CUP method was that no publicly accessible sources of information on comparable transactions between independent parties existed. The range of return on sales for 2012 under the TNMM was 1.83% – 5.59%, while Uralkali Trading SA’s actual profit margin was 1.81%. The court supported the taxpayer’s choice of pricing method (TNMM), and since the Swiss trader’s actual profit margin did not exceed the upper limit of the range, it was concluded that the controlled transactions were priced at arm’s length.  The court rejected ... Continue to full case
Korea vs Defence Corp, March 2006, Supreme Court, Case No 2004두4239

Korea vs Defence Corp, March 2006, Supreme Court, Case No 2004두4239

In this case the Korean Supreme Court concluded that the tax authorities had used transactions with different terms and conditions to price the controlled transactions. According to Article 5 (1) of the National Development and Reform Act in Korea, the TNM method can be applied only when the normal price can not be calculated by a conventional transfer pricing method, e.g. due to lack of comparable transactions. In addition, there was no proper way to adjust for the significant differences between the controlled transaction and transaction. Taxation based on the conventional transfer pricing methods may later be performed by the tax referee or the court. In fact, some cases have admitted the unlawfulness of tax disposition on the grounds of unreasonable selection of comparable transactions or lack of rational adjustment. However, if the tax assesssment is canceled in court, there will be cases where the taxation can no longer be carried out due to statues of limitations. Click here for ... Continue to full case
Korea vs Corp, October 2001, Supreme Court, Case No 99두3423

Korea vs Corp, October 2001, Supreme Court, Case No 99두3423

In Korea the tax authorities usually regarded domestic transactions as better comparables and there were only few cases where transfer pricing had been applied based on foreign transactions. In this case, the Korean Supreme Court confirms that international transactions can be used as comparables for the pricing of domestic transaktions. Click here for English Translation 99두3423 ... Continue to full case