STOCK Plzeň-Božkov, s. r. o. had deducted costs for production consultancy services, financial services and internal support services allegedly received from related parties. The tax authorities disallowed deduction of the costs for tax purposes on the basis that the evidence provided by STOCK regarding the nature and pricing of the services was insufficient. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Court ruled in favour of STOCK in relation to the production consultancy services. The tax authority’s requirement that the company document each individual ‘piece of advice’ and quantify the benefits in minute detail was unreasonable. According to the Court, it is sufficient to explain how the production services were provided and what benefits the company derived from them. The Court agreed with the tax authority’s conclusions regarding the financial services. STOCK did not document the conditions of withdrawal or the amount of credit granted to group companies. Furthermore, it did not prove that the part of the consultancy price allocated ... Read more

A Oyj was the parent company of the A-group, and responsible for the group’s centralised financial activities. It owned the entire share capital of D Oy and B Oy. D Oy in turn owned the entire share capital of ZAO C, a Russian company. A Oyj had raised funds from outside the group and lent these funds to its Finnish subsidiary B Oy, which in turn had provided a loan to ZAO C. The interest charged by B Oy on the loans to ZAO C was based on the cost of A Oyj’s external financing. The interest rate also included a margin of 0,55 % in tax year 2009, 0,58 % in tax year 2010 and 0,54 % in tax year 2011. The margins had been based on the average margin of A Oyj’s external financing plus 10 %. The Tax Administration had considered that the level of interest to be charged to ZAO C should have been determined taking ... Read more