Tag: Discretionary assessment

Denmark vs Tetra Pak Processing Systems A/S, April 2021, Supreme Court, Case No BS-19502/2020-HJR

Denmark vs Tetra Pak Processing Systems A/S, April 2021, Supreme Court, Case No BS-19502/2020-HJR

The Danish tax authorities had issued a discretionary assessment of the taxable income of Tetra Pak Processing Systems A/S due to inadequate transfer pricing documentation and continuous losses. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court found that the TP documentation provided by the company did not comply to the required standards. The TP documentation did state how prices between Tetra Pak and the sales companies had been determined and did not contain a comparability analysis, as required under the current § 3 B, para. 5 of the Tax Control Act and section 6 of the Danish administrative ordinance regarding transfer pricing documentation. Against this background, the Supreme Court found that the TP documentation was deficient to such an extent that it had to be equated with missing documentation. The Supreme Court agreed that Tetra Pak’s taxable income for FY 2005-2009 could be determined on a discretionary basis. According to the Supreme Court Tetra Pak had not proved that the ... Continue to full case
Norway vs Petrolia Noco AS, March 2021, Court of Appeal, Case No LB-2020-5842

Norway vs Petrolia Noco AS, March 2021, Court of Appeal, Case No LB-2020-5842

In 2011, Petrolia SE established a wholly owned subsidiary in Norway – Petrolia Noco AS – to conduct oil exploration activities on the Norwegian shelf. From the outset, Petrolia Noco AS received a loan from the parent company Petrolia SE. The written loan agreement was first signed later on 15 May 2012. The loan limit was originally MNOK 100 with an agreed interest rate of 3 months NIBOR with the addition of a margin of 2.25 percentage points. When the loan agreement was formalized in writing in 2012, the agreed interest rate was changed to 3 months NIBOR with the addition of an interest margin of 10 percentage points. The loan limit was increased to MNOK 150 in September 2012, and then to MNOK 330 in April 2013. In the tax return for 2012 and 2013, Petrolia Noco AS demanded a full deduction for actual interest costs on the intra-group loan to the parent company Petrolia SE. Following an audit ... Continue to full case
Denmark vs. "H Borrower and Lender A/S", January 2021, Tax Tribunal, Case no SKM2021.33.LSR

Denmark vs. “H Borrower and Lender A/S”, January 2021, Tax Tribunal, Case no SKM2021.33.LSR

“H Borrower and Lender A/S”, a Danish subsidiary in the H Group, had placed deposits at and received loans from a group treasury company, H4, where the interest rate paid on the loans was substantially higher than the interest rate received on the deposits. Due to insufficient transfer pricing documentation, the tax authorities (SKAT) issued a discretionary assessment of taxable income where the interest rate on the loans had been adjusted based on the rate received on the deposits. Decision of the Tax Tribunal The National Tax Tribunal stated that the documentation was deficient to such an extent that it could be equated with a lack of documentation. The tax authorities had therefore been entitled to make a discretionary assessment. The National Tax Tribunal referred, among other things, to the fact that the company’s transfer pricing documentation lacked a basic functional analysis of the group treasury company with which the company had controlled transactions. “The National Tax Tribunal finds that ... Continue to full case
Denmark vs. ECCO A/S , October 2020, High Court, Case No SKM2020.397.VLR

Denmark vs. ECCO A/S , October 2020, High Court, Case No SKM2020.397.VLR

ECCO A/S is the parent company of a multinational group, whose main activity is the design, development, production and sale of shoes. The group was founded in 1963, and has since gone from being a small Danish shoe manufacturer to being a global player with about 20,000 employees and with sales and production subsidiaries in a large number of countries. ECCO purchased goods from both internal and external producers, and at issue was whether transactions with it’s foreign subsidiaries had been conducted at arm’s length terms. ECCO had prepared two sets of two transfer pricing documentation, both of which were available when the tax authorities issued its assessment. The transfer pricing documentation contained a review of the parent company’s pricing and terms in relation to both internal and external production companies, and a comparability analyzes. The High Court issued a decision in favor of the ECCO A/S. The Court found that the transfer pricing documentation was not deficient to such ... Continue to full case
Denmark vs. Adecco A/S, June 2020, Supreme Court, Case No SKM2020.303.HR

Denmark vs. Adecco A/S, June 2020, Supreme Court, Case No SKM2020.303.HR

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. Adecco A/S submitted that the company’s royalty payments were operating expenses deductible under section 6 (a) of the State Tax Act and that it was entitled to tax deductions for royalty payments of 1.5% of the company’s turnover in the first half of 2006 and 2% up to and including 2009, as these ... Continue to full case
Denmark vs Icemachine Manufacturer A/S, June 2020, National Court, Case No SKM2020.224.VLR

Denmark vs Icemachine Manufacturer A/S, June 2020, National Court, Case No SKM2020.224.VLR

At issue was the question of whether the Danish tax authorities had been entitled to make a discretionary assessment of the taxable income of Icemachine Manufacturer A/S due to inadequate transfer pricing documentation and continuous losses. And if such a discretionary assessment was justified, the question of whether the company had lifted the burden of proof that the tax authorities’ estimates had been clearly unreasonable. The Court ruled that the transfer pricing documentation provided by the company was so inadequate that it did not provide the tax authorities with a sufficient basis for determining whether the arm’s length principle had been followed. The tax authorities had therefore been entitled to make a discretionary assessment of the taxable income. For that purpose the Court found that the tax authorities had been justified in using the TNM method with the Danish company as the tested party, since sufficiently reliable information on the sales companies in the group had not been provided. (In April 2021 ... Continue to full case
Norway vs A/S Norske Shell, May 2020, Supreme Court, Case No HR-2020-1130-A

Norway vs A/S Norske Shell, May 2020, Supreme Court, Case No HR-2020-1130-A

A / S Norske Shell runs petroleum activities on the Norwegian continental shelf. By the judgment of the Court of Appeal in 2019, it had been decided that there was a basis for a discretionary tax assessment pursuant to section 13-1 of the Tax Act, based on the fact that costs for research and development in Norway should have been distributed among the other group members. According to section 13-1 third paragraph of the Norwegian Tax Act the Norwegian the arms length provisions must take into account OECD’s Transfer pricing guidelines. And according to the Court of Appeal the Petroleum Tax Appeals Board had correctly concluded – based on the fact – that this was a cost contribution arrangement. Hence the income determination then had to be in accordance with what follows from the OECD guidelines for such arrangements (TPG Chapter VIII). The question before the Supreme Court was whether this additional income assessment should also include the part of ... Continue to full case
Denmark vs Pharma Distributor A A/S, March 2020, National Court, Case No SKM2020.105.OLR

Denmark vs Pharma Distributor A A/S, March 2020, National Court, Case No SKM2020.105.OLR

Results in a Danish company engaged in distribution of pharmaceuticals were significantly below the arm’s length range of net profit according to the benchmark study, but by disregarding annual goodwill amortization of DKK 57.1 million, the results were within the arm’s length range. The goodwill being amortized in Pharma Distributor A A/S had been determined under a prior acquisition of the company, and later – due to a merger with the acquiring danish company – booked in Pharma Distributor A A/S. The main question in the case was whether Pharma Distributor A A/S were entitled to disregard the goodwill amortization in the comparability analysis. The national tax court had ruled in favor of the company, but the national court reached the opposite result. Thus, the National Court found that the goodwill in question had to be regarded as an operating asset, and therefore the depreciation had to be regarded as operating expenses when calculating the net profit (EBIT margin). In ... Continue to full case
Norway vs Petrolia Noco AS, November 2019, Oslo Court -2019-48963 – UTV-2020-104

Norway vs Petrolia Noco AS, November 2019, Oslo Court -2019-48963 – UTV-2020-104

In 2011, Petrolia SE established a wholly owned subsidiary in Norway – Petrolia Noco AS – to conduct oil exploration activities on the Norwegian shelf. From the outset Petrolia Noco AS received a loan from the parent company Petrolia SE. The written loan agreement was first signed later on 15 May 2012. The loan limit was originally MNOK 100 with an agreed interest rate of 3 months NIBOR with the addition of a margin of 2.25 percentage points. When the loan agreement was formalized in writing in 2012, the agreed interest rate was changed to 3 months NIBOR with the addition of an interest margin of 10 percentage points. The loan limit was increased to MNOK 150 in September 2012, and then to MNOK 330 in April 2013. In the tax return for 2012 and 2013, Petrolia Noco AS demanded a full deduction for actual interest costs on the intra-group loan to the parent company Petrolia SE. Following an audit ... Continue to full case
Denmark vs Microsoft Denmark, January 2019, Danish Supreme Court, Case No SKM2019.136.HR

Denmark vs Microsoft Denmark, January 2019, Danish Supreme Court, Case No SKM2019.136.HR

The Danish tax authorities were of the opinion that Microsoft Denmark had not been properly remunerated for performing marketing activities due to the fact that OEM sales to Danish customers via MNE OEM’s had not been included in the calculation of local commissions. According to the Market Development Agreement (MDA agreement) concluded between Microsoft Denmark and MIOL with effect from 1 July 2003, Microsoft Denmark received the largest amount of either a commission based on sales invoiced in Denmark or a markup on it’s costs. Microsoft Denmark’s commission did not take into account the sale of Microsoft products that occurred through the sale of computers by multinational computer manufacturers with pre-installed Microsoft software to end users in Denmark – (OEM sales). In court, Microsoft required a dismissal. In a narrow 3:2 decision the Danish Supreme Court found in favor of Microsoft. “…Microsoft Denmark’s marketing may have had some derivative effect, especially in the period around the launch in 2007 of ... Continue to full case
France vs GE Medical Systems, November 2018, Supreme Court - Conseil d’État n° 410779

France vs GE Medical Systems, November 2018, Supreme Court – Conseil d’État n° 410779

Following an audit of GE Medical Systems Limited Partnership (SCS), which is engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of medical equipment and software, the French tax authorities issued an assessment related to the “value added amount” produced by the company, which serves as the basis for calculating the French minimum contribution of business tax provided for in Article 1647 E of the General Tax Code. The tax authorities was of the view that (1) prices charged for goods and services provided to foreign-affiliated companies had been lower than arm’s length prices and that (2) part of deducted factoring costs were not deductible in the basis for calculating the minimum business tax. On that basis a discretionary assessment of additional minimum business tax was issued. GE Medical Systems appealed the assessment to the Administrative Court of  Appeal. The Court of Appeal came to the conclusion that the basis for assessment of arm’s length prices of the goods and services sold had ... Continue to full case
Denmark vs. Danish Production A/S, Feb 2018, Tax Tribunal, SKM2018.62.LSR

Denmark vs. Danish Production A/S, Feb 2018, Tax Tribunal, SKM2018.62.LSR

The Danish Tax Tribunal found that the tax administration had been entitled to make a discretionary assessment, due to the lack of a comparability analysis in the company’s transfer pricing documentation. The Tax Tribunal also found that the Danish company had correctly been chosen as tested party when applying the TNMM, although the foreign sales companies were the least complex. Information about the foreign sales companies was insufficient and a significant part of the income in the foreign sales companies related to sale of goods not purchased from the Danish production company. Click here for translation SKM2018-62-LSR ... Continue to full case
US vs E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co, October 1979, US Courts of Claims, Case No 608 F.2d 445 (Ct. Cls. 1979)

US vs E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co, October 1979, US Courts of Claims, Case No 608 F.2d 445 (Ct. Cls. 1979)

Taxpayer Du Pont de Nemours, the American chemical concern, created early in 1959 a wholly-owned Swiss marketing and sales subsidiary for foreign sales — Du Pont International S.A. (known to the record and the parties as DISA). Most of the Du Pont chemical products marketed abroad were first sold by taxpayer to DISA, which then arranged for resale to the ultimate consumer through independent distributors. The profits on these Du Pont sales were divided for income tax purposes between plaintiff and DISA via the mechanism of the prices plaintiff charged DISA. For 1959 and 1960 the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, acting under section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code which gives him authority to reallocate profits among commonly controlled enterprises, found these divisions of profits economically unrealistic as giving DISA too great a share. Accordingly, he reallocated a substantial part of DISA’s income to taxpayer, thus increasing the latter’s taxes for 1959 and 1960 by considerable sums. The additional taxes ... Continue to full case