Tag: Hidden distribution of profits

France vs ST Dupont , April 2022, CAA of Paris, No 19PA01644

France vs ST Dupont , April 2022, CAA of Paris, No 19PA01644

ST Dupont is a French luxury manufacturer of lighters, pens and leather goods. It is majority-owned by the Dutch company D&D International, which is wholly-owned by Broad Gain Investments Ltd, based in Hong Kong. ST Dupont is the sole shareholder of distribution subsidiaries located abroad, in particular ST Dupont Marketing, based in Hong Kong. Following an audit, an adjustment was issued where the tax administration considered that the prices at which ST Dupont sold its products to ST Dupont Marketing (Hong Kong) were lower than the arm’s length prices. “The investigation revealed that the administration found that ST Dupont was making significant and persistent losses, with an operating loss of between EUR 7,260,086 and EUR 32,408,032 for the financial years from 2003 to 2009. It also noted that its marketing subsidiary in Hong Kong, ST Dupont Marketing, in which it held the entire capital, was making a profit, with results ranging from EUR 920,739 to EUR 3,828,051 for the same ... Read more
Switzerland vs A AG, September 2021, Administrative Court, Case No SB.2020.00011/12 and SB.2020.00014/15

Switzerland vs A AG, September 2021, Administrative Court, Case No SB.2020.00011/12 and SB.2020.00014/15

A AG, which was founded in 2000 by researchers from the University of Applied Sciences D, has as its object the development and distribution of …, in particular in the areas of ….. It had its registered office in Zurich until the transfer of its registered office to Zug in 2021. By contract dated 16 June 2011, it was taken over by Group E, Country Q, or by an acquisition company founded by it for this purpose, for a share purchase price of EUR …. On the same day, it concluded two contracts with E-Schweiz AG, which was in the process of being founded (entered in the Commercial Register on 7 September 2011), in which it undertook to provide general and administrative services on the one hand and research and development on the other. As of 30 September 2011, A AG sold all ”Intellectual Property Rights” (IPR) and ”Non-Viral Contracts” to E-Company, a company in U with tax domicile on ... Read more
Bulgaria vs Central Hydroelectric de Bulgari EOOD, July 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 8331

Bulgaria vs Central Hydroelectric de Bulgari EOOD, July 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 8331

By judgment of 19 January 2021, the Administrative Court upheld an assessment for FY 2012-2017 issued by the tax authorities on the determination of the arm’s length income resulting from related party transactions. The tax assessment resulted from disallowed deductions for Intra group services provided under a general administrative, legal and financial assistance contract of 22 October 2012 Costs invoiced for the preparation of consolidated accounts Expenses related to “Technical services” for which no explanations had been provided An appeal was filed by Central Hydroelectric de Bulgari EOOD with the Supreme Administrative Court in which the company stated that the decision of the Administrative Court was incorrect. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Supreme Administrative Court partially upheld the decision of the Administrative Court. Excerpts “The present Court of Cassation finds the judgment of the ACGC valid and admissible. The argument of the applicant that the same is inadmissible is unfounded in the part in which the RA was ... Read more
France vs Bluestar Silicones France, Feb 2021, Supreme Administrative Court (CAA), Case No 16VE00352

France vs Bluestar Silicones France, Feb 2021, Supreme Administrative Court (CAA), Case No 16VE00352

Bluestar Silicones France (BSF), now Elkem Silicones France SAS (ESF), produces silicones and various products that it sells to other companies belonging to the Bluestar Silicones International group. The company was audited for the financial years 2007 – 2008 and an assessment was issued. According to the tax authorities, the selling prices of the silicone products had been below the arm’s length price and the company had refrained from invoicing of management exepences and cost of secondment of employees . In the course of the proceedings agreement had been reached on the pricing of products. Hence, in dispute before the court was the issue of lacking invoicing of management exepences and cost of secondment of employees for the benefit of the Chinese and Brazilian subsidiaries of the Group. According to the company there had been no hidden transfer of profits; its method of constructing the group’s prices has not changed and compliance with the arm’s length principle has been demonstrated ... Read more
France vs Société Générale S.A., Feb 2021, Administrative Court of Appeal, Case No 16VE00352

France vs Société Générale S.A., Feb 2021, Administrative Court of Appeal, Case No 16VE00352

Société Générale S.A. had paid for costs from which its subsidiaries had benefited. The costs in question was not deducted by Société Générale in its tax return, but nor had they been considered distribution of profits subject to withholding tax. Following an audit for FY 2008 – 2011 a tax assessment was issued by the tax authorities according to which the hidden distribution of profits from which the subsidiaries benefited should have been subject to withholding tax in France Société Générale held that the advantage granted by the parent company in not recharging costs to the subsidiaries resulted in an increase in the valuation of the subsidiaries. It also argued that the advantages in question were not “hidden” since they were explicitly mentioned in the documents annexed to the tax return By judgment of 11 October 2018, the court of first instance discharged the withholding taxes as regards the absence of re-invoicing of costs incurred on behalf of the subsidiaries located ... Read more
Bulgaria vs Montupet, January 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 630

Bulgaria vs Montupet, January 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 630

Montupet EOOD is a Bulgarian subsidiary in the French Montupet Group which specializes in the production of aluminum components for the automotive industry. In February 2016, the French Group became part of the Canadian LINAMAR Group, which specializes in the manufacture and assembly of components for the automotive industry. The French group and its production facilities (plants in France, Bulgaria, Northern Ireland, Mexico and Spain) retained their core business as part of one of LINAMAR’s five main business areas – light metal casting. Effective 01.01.2017, Montupet SAS and Montupet EOOD entered into a Services Agreement, which canceled a previous agreement of 21.12.2009 in the part concerning the corporate and management services provided. Pursuant to the new agreement, Montupet SAS undertakes to provide Montupet EOOD with business advisory services in various areas such as business strategy and development advice; financial strategy advice; legal advice; human resources strategy advice; pricing advice and price negotiations with global customers; supply chain management assistance and ... Read more
Switzerland vs "Contractual Seller SA", January 2021, Federal Supreme Court, Case No 2C_498/2020

Switzerland vs “Contractual Seller SA”, January 2021, Federal Supreme Court, Case No 2C_498/2020

C. SA provides “services, in particular in the areas of communication, management, accounting, management and budget control, sales development monitoring and employee training for the group to which it belongs, active in particular in the field of “F”. C. SA is part of an international group of companies, G. group, whose ultimate owner is A. The G group includes H. Ltd, based in the British Virgin Islands, I. Ltd, based in Guernsey and J. Ltd, also based in Guernsey. In 2005, K. was a director of C. SA. On December 21 and December 31, 2004, an exclusive agreement for distribution of “F” was entered into between L. Ltd, on the one hand, and C. SA , H. Ltd and J. Ltd, on the other hand. Under the terms of this distribution agreement, L. Ltd. undertook to supply “F” to the three companies as of January 1, 2005 and for a period of at least ten years, in return for payment ... Read more
Switzerland vs "Contractual Seller SA", May 2020, Federal Administrative Court, Case No A-2286/2017

Switzerland vs “Contractual Seller SA”, May 2020, Federal Administrative Court, Case No A-2286/2017

C. SA provides “services, in particular in the areas of communication, management, accounting, management and budget control, sales development monitoring and employee training for the group to which it belongs, active in particular in the field of “F”. C. SA is part of an international group of companies, G. group, whose ultimate owner is A. The G group includes H. Ltd, based in the British Virgin Islands, I. Ltd, based in Guernsey and J. Ltd, also based in Guernsey. In 2005, K. was a director of C. SA. On December 21 and December 31, 2004, an exclusive agreement for distribution of “F” was entered into between L. Ltd, on the one hand, and C. SA , H. Ltd and J. Ltd, on the other hand. Under the terms of this distribution agreement, L. Ltd. undertook to supply “F” to the three companies as of January 1, 2005 and for a period of at least ten years, in return for payment ... Read more
Luxembourg vs Lender Societe, July 2019, Cour Administratif, Case No 42083

Luxembourg vs Lender Societe, July 2019, Cour Administratif, Case No 42083

Lender Societe had acquired real estate in 2008 for EUR 26 million. The acquisition had been financed by a bank loan of EUR 20 million and a shareholder loan of EUR 6 million. The interest rate on the shareholder loan was set at 12%. The Tax Authorities found that the “excessive” part of the interest paid on the shareholder loan was as a hidden distribution of profit subject to dividend withholding tax. The hidden profit distribution was calculated as the difference between an arm’s length interest rate set at approximately 3% and the interest rate according to the loan agreement of 12%. Lender Societe disagreed with the assessment and brought the case before the Tribunal Administratif. The Tribunal agreed with the Tax Authorities and qualified the excessive interest payments as a hidden profit distribution subject to a 15% dividend withholding tax. The decision of the Tax Tribunal is affirmed by the Cour Administratif. Click here for translation Luxembourg vs S.A 17 July 2019 Case No 42043C ... Read more
France vs ST Dupont, March 2019, Administrative Court of Paris, No 1620873, 1705086/1-3

France vs ST Dupont, March 2019, Administrative Court of Paris, No 1620873, 1705086/1-3

ST Dupont is a French luxury manufacturer of lighters, pens and leather goods. It is majority-owned by the Dutch company, D&D International, which is wholly-owned by Broad Gain Investments Ltd, based in Hong Kong. ST Dupont is the sole shareholder of distribution subsidiaries located abroad, in particular ST Dupont Marketing, based in Hong Kong. Following an audit, an adjustment was issued for FY 2009, 2010 and 2011 where the tax administration considered that the prices at which ST Dupont sold its products to ST Dupont Marketing (Hong Kong) were lower than the arm’s length prices, that royalty rates had not been at arm’s length. Furthermore adjustments had been made to losses carried forward. Not satisfied with the adjustment ST Dupont filed an appeal with the Paris administrative Court. Judgement of the Administrative Court The Court set aside the tax assessment in regards to license payments and resulting adjustments to loss carry forward but upheld in regards of pricing of the ... Read more
Luxembourg vs Lux SARL, December 2018, Administrative Court, Case No 40455

Luxembourg vs Lux SARL, December 2018, Administrative Court, Case No 40455

In a case on hidden distribution of profits, the Luxembourg tax authorities stated the following on the issue of valuation methods for intangible assets (a patent): “…the evaluation of an intellectual property right is a rather complex subject; that evaluation reports from “independent” experts in this field are often rather subjective; whereas, therefore, reference should be made to a neutral and recognized body for the evaluation of patents, in this case WIPO, which proposes three different methods of valuation, including (a) the cost method, (b) the revenue method, as well as (c) the market method; that the first method of evaluation is to be dismissed from the outset in view of the absence of research and development expenses reported by the Claimant; that the second method is based on the future revenues of the patent invention; therefore, there must be a large enough amount of data to predict future revenues over the life of the patent, which is not the case here, as the tax dispute ... Read more
Luxembourg vs Lender Societe, November 2018, Tribunal Administratif, Case No 40348

Luxembourg vs Lender Societe, November 2018, Tribunal Administratif, Case No 40348

Lender Societe had acquired real estate in 2008 for EUR 26 million. The acquisition had been financed by a bank loan of EUR 20 million and a shareholder loan of EUR 6 million. The interest rate on the shareholder loan was set at 12%. The Tax Authorities found that the “excessive” part of the interest paid on the shareholder loan was as a hidden distribution of profit subject to dividend withholding tax. The hidden profit distribution was calculated as the difference between an arm’s length interest rate set at approximately 3% and the interest rate according to the loan agreement of 12%. Lender Societe disagreed with the assessment and brought the case before the Tribunal Administratif. The Tribunal agreed with the Tax Authorities and qualified the excessive interest payments as a hidden profit distribution subject to a 15% dividend withholding tax. Click here for translation Luxembourg vs Societe 071018 tribunal administratif du Luxembourg No 40348 ... Read more
Germany vs Cyprus Ltd, June 2018, BFH judgment Case No IR 94/15

Germany vs Cyprus Ltd, June 2018, BFH judgment Case No IR 94/15

The Bundesfinanzhof confirmed prior case law according to which the provisions on hidden deposits and hidden profit distributions must be observed in the context of the additional taxation. On the question of economic activity of the controlled foreign company, the Bundesfinanzhof refers to the ruling of the European Court of Justice concerning Cadbury-Schweppes from 2006. According to paragraphs §§ 7 to 14 in the Außensteuergesetz (AStG) profits from controlled foreign companies without business activity can be taxed in Germany. In the case at hand the subsidiary was located in a rented office in Cyprus and employed a resident managing director. Her job was to handle correspondence with clients, to carry out and supervise payment transactions, manage business records and keep records. She was also entrusted with obtaining book licenses to order these sub-licenses for the benefit of three of Russia’s and Ukraine’s affiliates, which distributed the books in the Russian-speaking market. The license income earned by subsidiary was taxed at ... Read more
Bulgaria vs "B-Production", August 2017, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 10185

Bulgaria vs “B-Production”, August 2017, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 10185

“B-Production” is a subsidiary in a US multinational group and engaged in production and sales. “B-Production” pays services fees and royalties to its US parent. Following an audit, the tax authorities issued an assessment where deductions for these costs had been reduced which in turn resulted in additional taxabel income. An appeal was filed by “B-Production” with the Administrative court which in a judgement of June 2015 was rejected. An appeal was then filed by “B-Production” with the Supreme Administrative Court. In the appeal “B-Production” contested the findings of the Administrative Court that there was a hidden distribution of profits by means of the payment of management fees and duplication (overlapping) of the services at issue under the management contract and the other two agreements between the B-Production and the parent company. B-Production further argued that the evidence in the case refutes the conclusions in the tax assessment and the contested decision that the services rendered did not confer an ... Read more
Germany vs "A Investment GmbH", June 2017, Tax Court , Case no 10 K 771/16

Germany vs “A Investment GmbH”, June 2017, Tax Court , Case no 10 K 771/16

A Investment GmbH, acquired all shares of B in May 2012. To finance the acquisition, A Investment GmbH took up a bank loan (term: 5 years; interest rate: 4.78%; secured; senior), a vendor loan (term: 6 years; interest rate: 10%; unsecured; subordinated) and a shareholder loan (term: 9 to 10 years; interest rate: 8%; unsecured; subordinated). The 8 % interest rate on the shareholder loan was determined by A Investment GmbH by applying the CUP method based on external comparables. The German tax authority, found that the interest rate of 8 % did not comply with the arm’s length principle. An assessment was issued where the interest rate was set to 5% based on the interest rate on the bank loan (internal CUP). A Investment GmbH filed an appeal to Cologne Tax Court. The court ruled that the interest rate of the bank loan, 4.78%, was a reliable CUP for setting the arm’s length interest rate of the controlled loan. The ... Read more
Luxembourg vs LuxCo TM, December 2015, Administrative Court, Case No 33611

Luxembourg vs LuxCo TM, December 2015, Administrative Court, Case No 33611

LuxCo TM sold trademarks to a newly established sister company. The price had been set at €975,000. The tax authorities issued an assessment where the price had been set at €6,475,000 and the difference was considered to be hidden profit distribution. The Administrative court ruled in favor of the tax authorities. LuxCo TM’s valuation had been based on wrong facts and assumptions. Click here for translation Lux vs Luxco 10 dec 2015 33611 ... Read more
Germany vs Capital GmbH, June 2015, Bundesfinanzhof, Case No I R 29/14

Germany vs Capital GmbH, June 2015, Bundesfinanzhof, Case No I R 29/14

The German subsidiary of a Canadian group lent significant sums to its under-capitalised UK subsidiary. The debt proved irrecoverable and was written off in 2002 when the UK company ceased trading. At the time, such write-offs were permitted subject to adherence to the principle of dealing at arm’s length. In its determination of profits on October 31, 2002, the German GmbH made a partial write-off of the repayment claim against J Ltd. in the amount of 717.700 €. The tax authorities objected that the unsecured loans were not at arm’s length. The tax authorities subjected the write-down of the claims from the loan, which the authorities considered to be equity-replacing, to the deduction prohibition of the Corporation Tax Act. The authorities further argued that if this was not the case, then, due to the lack of loan collateral, there would be a profit adjustment pursuant to § 1 of the Foreign Taxation Act. Irrespective of this, the unsecured loans had ... Read more
Germany vs C-GmbH, December 2014, Bundesfinanzhof, Case No I R 23/13

Germany vs C-GmbH, December 2014, Bundesfinanzhof, Case No I R 23/13

C-GmbH was the sole shareholder of I-GmbH. In 2000, I-GmbH, together with another company, set up a US company for the development of the US market, H-Inc., in which the I-GmbH held 60 per cent of the shares. H-Inc. received equity from the two shareholders and also received a bank loan of approx. $ 1.5 million (USD), which the shareholders secured through guarantees. As of December 31, 2003, the balance sheet of H-Inc. showed a deficit not covered by equity of approx. 950,000 USD. On June 30 , 2004,  I-GmbH became the sole shareholder of H-Inc. Then the bank put the H-Inc. granted loans due. Since H-Inc. was not able to serve the bank loan, C-GmbH paid the bank. As of December 31, 2004, the balance sheet of H-Inc. showed a deficit not covered by equity of approx. $ 450,000 , which at December 31 , 2005 amounted to approx. $ 1.6 million, as at 31 December 2006 $ 2.5 million ... Read more
Switzerland vs Corp, Oct. 2014, Federal Supreme Court, Case No. 4A_138-2014

Switzerland vs Corp, Oct. 2014, Federal Supreme Court, Case No. 4A_138-2014

Decision on the criteria for the arm’s length test of interest rates on inter-company loans. This case i about intercompany loans created by zero balancing cash pooling and the funding of group companies by a group finance company. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court states – If the terms of inter-company loans are not conforming to market conditions, then the payment qualifies as a distribution and a special reserve must be made in the balance sheet of the lender. The Court also states – It is questionable from the outset whether a participation in the cash pool, by which the participant disposes of its liquidity, can pass the market conditions test at all. Click here for translation Swiss case law 4A_138-2014 ... Read more
Switzerland vs Hotel X. SA, Nov. 2013, Courts of Switzerland, Case No. 2C_291 / 2013 / 2C_292 / 2013

Switzerland vs Hotel X. SA, Nov. 2013, Courts of Switzerland, Case No. 2C_291 / 2013 / 2C_292 / 2013

A loan was granted from a swiss company to its shareholder. The interest rate was fixed at 2,5%. This was found to be a hidden distribution of profit to the shareholder, cf Art. 58 al. 1 letter. b LIFD. Click here for English translation Hotel X vs switzerland ... Read more
Switzerland vs. X, Oct. 2013, Federal Supreme Court, Case No. 2C_644-2013

Switzerland vs. X, Oct. 2013, Federal Supreme Court, Case No. 2C_644-2013

X was the principal shareholder and Chairman in the Insurance Agency, Y AG. In 2003, the company went bankrupt, with the bankruptcy proceedings suspended for lack of assets and the company was removed from the commercial register in September 2003. On 12 March 2007, the tax administration initiated a subsequent taxation proceedings against X concerning monetary benefits which it was supposed to have received from Y AG in the years 1997 to 2000. On 2 May 2012, the tax administration imposed an additional tax in the amount of CHF 39’056.20 including default interest. The appeal against this decision was rejected by the Tax Appeals Commission. Before the Federal Supreme Court, X appealed the decision. Excerp from the Federal Supreme Court ruling: “3.1 According to Art. 20 para. 1 lit.c DBG Income from movable assets, in particular dividends, profit shares, liquidation surpluses and non-cash benefits arising from participations of all kinds. In the relevant economic view, this includes all payments, transfers, ... Read more
Germany vs "Spedition Gmbh", December 2012, Federal Tax Court 11.10.2012, I R 75/11

Germany vs “Spedition Gmbh”, December 2012, Federal Tax Court 11.10.2012, I R 75/11

Spedition Gmbh entered a written agreement – at year-end – to pay management fees to its Dutch parent for services received during the year. The legal question was the relationship between arm’s-length principle as included in double tax treaties and the norms for income assessments in German tax law. The assessment of the tax office claiming a hidden distribution of profits because of the “retrospective” effect of the written agreement, was rejected by the Court. According to the Court the double tax treaty provisions bases the arm’s length standard on amount, rather than on the reason for, or documentation, of a transaction. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation Germany-vs-Corp-October-2012-BUNDESFINANZHOF-Urteil-IR-75-11- ... Read more
Austria vs. Wx-Distributor, July 2012, Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Case No RV/2516-W/09

Austria vs. Wx-Distributor, July 2012, Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Case No RV/2516-W/09

Wx-Distributor (a subsidiary of the Wx-group i.d.F. Bw.) is responsible for the distribution of Household appliances in Austria. It is wholly owned by Z. Deliveries to Wx-Distributor are made by production companies of the Group located in Germany, Italy, France, Slovakia, Poland and Sweden with which it has concluded distribution agreements to determine transfer prices. On average Wx-Distributor had been loss-making in FY 2001-2005. Following an tax audit, the intra-group transfer prices were re-determined for the years 2001 to 2004 by the tax authorities. It was determined that the transfer prices in two years were not within the arm’s length range. The review of the tax authorities had revealed a median EBIT margin of 1.53% and on that basis the operating margin for 2001 were set at 1.5%. For the following years the margin was set at 0.9% due to changed functions (outsourcing of accounts receivable, closure of half the IT department). The resulting adjustments were treated as hidden distribution ... Read more
Switzerland vs. Corp, Juli 2012, Federal Supreme Court, Case No. 2C_834-2011, 2C_836-2011

Switzerland vs. Corp, Juli 2012, Federal Supreme Court, Case No. 2C_834-2011, 2C_836-2011

In this ruling, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court comments on the application of the arm’s length principel and the burden of proff in Switzerland. “Services, which have their legal basis in the investment relationship, are to be offset against the taxable income of the company to the extent that they would otherwise not be granted to a third party under the same circumstances or not to the same extent and would not constitute a capital repayment. This rule of the so-called third-party comparison (or the principle of “dealing at arm’s length”) therefore requires that even legal transactions with equity holders or between Group companies be conducted on the same terms as would be agreed with external third parties on competitive and market conditions.” “Swiss Law – with the exception of individual provisions – does not have any actual group law and treats each company as a legally independent entity with its own bodies which have to transact the business in ... Read more
Turkey vs Lender, April 2012, Danıştay Üçüncü Dairesi, E. 2011/5165, K. 2012/1247, UYAP, 12.04.2012

Turkey vs Lender, April 2012, Danıştay Üçüncü Dairesi, E. 2011/5165, K. 2012/1247, UYAP, 12.04.2012

A Turkish company located in a tax free zone had obtained interest income based on the interest rate applied to foreign currency loans, although the company had lent money to its partner in Turkish Lira. Normally interest income is considered taxable, but within the tax free zone, income from listed activities is exempt. Click here for translation Turkey Case e-2011-5165-k-2012-1247-t-12-4-2012 ... Read more
Turkey vs Pharmaceutical Industry and Trade Corporation, December 2011, Danıştay Üçüncü Dairesi, E. 2009/2352, K. 2011/7637, UYAP, 20.12.2011.

Turkey vs Pharmaceutical Industry and Trade Corporation, December 2011, Danıştay Üçüncü Dairesi, E. 2009/2352, K. 2011/7637, UYAP, 20.12.2011.

A Turkeys Pharma Company carried out drug production, import and sales operations, and had purchased different active ingredients from foreign group companies. Following an audit the tax office found that the prices paid by the Pharma Company for six ingredients had been above the market price resulting in a hidden distribution of profits. A price study was performed for similar active ingredients suggesting price deviations ranging from 167 – 975 % Table 2: Price deviation from market price Theophylline 167.26% ibuprofen 478.34% Fluoxetine 975.15% Hyoscine-N-Butilbrüm 150.13% Povidone Iodine 176.83% metamizolesodi 260.05% An assessment was issued where the cost of the ingredients – and thus taxable income of the Pharma company – was adjusted based on the price paid for similar active ingredients between unrelated parties. The Pharma Company disagreed with the assessment and brought the case before the tax court. The Tax Court issued a decision in favor of the Pharma company. In a study from the Turkish Pharmaceutical Association ... Read more
Turkey vs No-Banker Corp, November 2008, Administrative Court, E. 2006/3620 K. 2008/4633 T. 18.11.2008

Turkey vs No-Banker Corp, November 2008, Administrative Court, E. 2006/3620 K. 2008/4633 T. 18.11.2008

No-banker Corp had issued an interest free loan to a related party. The Turkish tax office held that the lack of interest on the loan constituted a hidden distribution of profits and issued an assessment where additional income tax and a tax deficiency penalty was added and also banking and insurance transactions tax (BITT). The company filed a lawsuit based on the assessment. The tax court examined the case and determined that the loan to the partner had been used in the business of the company. Therefore, it was decided that the interest-free loan did not constitute a hidden distribution of profit. Hence, the tax court decided in favor of No-Banker Corp. The tax office then filed an appeal with Administrative Court. In a majority vote decision the Administrative Court rejected the appeal of the tax office and the decision of the tax court was upheld. It was emphasized that No-Banker Corp was not involved in bank or insurance business ... Read more
Turkey vs Headquarter Corp, September 2007, Danıştay Üçüncü Dairesi, E. 2007/89 K. 2007/2446, T. 20.09.2007

Turkey vs Headquarter Corp, September 2007, Danıştay Üçüncü Dairesi, E. 2007/89 K. 2007/2446, T. 20.09.2007

Headquarter Corp had transaction with it’s branch in the Turkish Mersin Free Zone. The branch imported the goods subject to the transaction from abroad for $ 2,298,137.79 and these goods were then transferred from the branch to the Headquarter Corps for US $ 3,214,135.00 without any special processing, production process or added value by the branch. The tax office issued an assessment where the price of the controlled transactions were adjusted based on the import price (internal CUP). Headquarter Corp brought the assessment to court. The tax court stated, that because the branch does not have a separate legal entity from the company, profits were not transferred out of the company as a result of the high-priced transaction. Therefor there was no hidden distribution of income. However, it was also concluded that the reason behind the sale of the goods sold to the Headquarter from the branch in the free zone of Mersin, at a price that was above market prices for ... Read more
Germany vs "Trademark GmbH", November 2006, FG München, Case No 6 K 578/06

Germany vs “Trademark GmbH”, November 2006, FG München, Case No 6 K 578/06

A German company on behalf of its Austrian Parent X-GmbH distributed products manufactured by the Austrian X-KG. By a contract of 28 May 1992, X-GmbH granted the German company the right to use the trade mark ‘X’ registered in Austria. According to the agreement the German company paid a license fee for the right to use the trade mark. In 1991, X-GmbH had also granted X-KG a corresponding right. By a contract dated 1 July 1992, X-KG was granted exclusive distribution rights for the German market. In the meantime, the mark ‘X’ had been registered as a Community trade mark in the Internal Market. The tax authorities dealt with the payment of royalties to X-GmbH for the years in question as vGA (hidden profit distribution). Click here for English translation Click here for other translation K 578-06 ... Read more
Germany vs "Clothing Distribution Gmbh", October 2001, BFH Urt. 17.10.2001, IR 103/00

Germany vs “Clothing Distribution Gmbh”, October 2001, BFH Urt. 17.10.2001, IR 103/00

A German GmbH distributed clothing for its Italian parent. The German tax authorities issued a tax assessment based on hidden profit distribution from the German GmbH in favor of its Italien parent as a result of excessive purchase prices, which led to high and continuous losses in Germany.  The tax authorities determined the arm’s length price based on purchase prices, which the German GmbH had paid to external suppliers. However, these purchases accounted for only 5% of the turnover. The German Tax Court affirmed in substance a vGA (hidden profit distribution) as the tax authorities had provided no proff of deviation from arm’s length prices. If a hidden profit distribution is to be accepted, the profit shall be increased by the difference between the actually agreed price and the price agreed by independent contractual parties under similar circumstances – the arm’s length price. Where a range of arm’s length prices is produced, there are no legal basis for adjustment to the ... Read more
Germany vs Corp, January 1973, Bundesfinanzhof, Case No BFH, 10.01.1973 - I R 119/70

Germany vs Corp, January 1973, Bundesfinanzhof, Case No BFH, 10.01.1973 – I R 119/70

A hidden distribution of profit presupposes that a corporation grants its shareholder a pecuniary advantage outside the distribution of profits under company law which it would not have granted to a non-shareholder — under otherwise identical circumstances — if the diligence of a prudent and conscientious manager had been applied. It should be noted that a director must be allowed a certain degree of commercial discretion. 1) As was stated in the judgment of the Senate in Case I R 21/68, a hidden profit distribution presupposes that a corporation grants its shareholder a pecuniary advantage outside the distribution of profits under company law which it would not have granted to a non-shareholder — under otherwise identical circumstances — if the diligence of a prudent and conscientious manager had been applied. This means that it is not the diligence of the managing director in the event of a dispute but the diligence of a prudent and conscientious manager that is the ... Read more