French subsidiaries Industeel Creusot and Industeel Loire paid 1% royalties to Luxembourg parent ArcelorMittal SA for use of the group brand and logo. The French tax authorities disallowed the deductions as abnormal management acts, accepting only a symbolic 0.1% rate. The Paris Court of Appeal upheld the assessments in 2025, finding the ArcelorMittal brand functioned only as an umbrella brand with no proven decisive influence on the subsidiaries' B2B sales ... Read more

Questions often arise regarding the arm’s length compensation for the use of group names, trade names and similar intangibles. Resolution of such questions should be based on the principles of this Section B and on the commercial and legal factors involved. As a general rule, no payment should be recognised for transfer pricing purposes for simple recognition of group membership or the use of the group name merely to reflect the fact of group membership. See paragraph 7.12 ... Read more

An Italian company received a transfer pricing assessment for 2003 covering royalty deductions, interest income on a loan to a foreign subsidiary, and a denied dividend tax credit. The tax authority appealed a largely taxpayer-favourable Regional Court ruling. Italy's Supreme Court clarified in 2018 that the arm's length provision under Article 110 TUIR is not an anti-avoidance rule, deciding mostly in favour of the taxpayer ... Read more

Questions often arise regarding the arm’s length compensation for the use of group names, trade names and similar intangibles. Resolution of such questions should be based on the principles of this Section B and on the commercial and legal factors involved. As a general rule, no payment should be recognised for transfer pricing purposes for simple recognition of group membership or the use of the group name merely to reflect the fact of group membership. See paragraph 7.12 ... Read more

A German parent company allowed its Polish subsidiaries to register under the group name and charged separately for patented technology, but did not license its logo. The German tax office sought an income adjustment, arguing the group name was a valuable intangible. The Supreme Tax Court ruled in favour of the taxpayer, confirming that use of a group name in subsidiary registration alone does not create a royalty entitlement for the parent ... Read more

A German company used its group name and trademark without paying a licence fee. The tax authority challenged this arrangement, arguing a fee was required under the arm's length principle. The Local Tax Court sided with the tax authority in February 2014, finding that a licence must be paid where the group name holds independent value. The decision was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Tax Court ... Read more

A German group company sought to deduct payments made for the use of the group name under transfer pricing rules. The German tax authority challenged the deductibility, and the court sided with the authority, ruling that no payment should be recognised for merely reflecting group membership. The 2000 decision aligns with OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines on marketing intangibles and group name usage ... Read more