Tag: HTVI

Guidance for Tax Administrations on the Application of Guidance on Hard-to-Value Intangibles

Guidance for Tax Administrations on the Application of Guidance on Hard-to-Value Intangibles

A new report from the OECD contains guidance for tax administration on the application of the approach to hard-to-value intangibles (HTVI), under BEPS Action 8. This new guidance present the principles that should underlie the application of the HTVI approach by tax administration, with the aim of improving consistency and reduce the risk of economic double taxation. The new guidance also includes a number of examples clarifying the application of the HTVI approach in different scenarios; and addresses the interaction between the HTVI approach and the access to the mutual agreement procedure under the applicable tax treaty. guidance-for-tax-administrations-on-the-application-of-the-approach-to-hard-to-value-intangibles-BEPS-action-8 ... Continue to full case
Netherlands vs Shoe Corp, June 2007, District Court, Case nr. 05/1352, VSN June 2, 2007

Netherlands vs Shoe Corp, June 2007, District Court, Case nr. 05/1352, VSN June 2, 2007

This case is about a IP sale-and-license-back arrangement. The taxpayer acquired the shares in BV Z (holding). BV Z owns the shares in BV A and BV B (the three BVs form a fiscal unity under the CITA). BV A produces and sells shoes. In 1993, under a self-proclaimed protection clause, BV A sells the trademark of the shoes to BV C, which is also part of the fiscal unity. The protection clause was supposedly intended to protect the trademark in case of default of BV A. Taxpayer had created BV C prior to the sale of the trademark. In 1994, the taxpayer entered into a licensing agreement with BV C: the taxpayer pays NLG 2 to BV C per pair of shoes sold. Next, BV C is then moved to the Netherlands Antilles, which results in the end of the fiscal unity as of January 1, 1994. The roundtrip arrangement, the sale of an intangible and the subsequent payment of ... Continue to full case