Tag: Intermediary Company  

See: Conduit company

France vs Société Planet, May 2022, Conseil d'État, Case No 444451

France vs Société Planet, May 2022, Conseil d’État, Case No 444451

In view of its purpose and the comments made on Article 12 of the OECD Model Convention, the Conseil d’État found that Article 12(2) of the Franco-New Zealand tax treaty was applicable to French source royalties whose beneficial owner resided in New Zealand, even if the royalties had been paid to an intermediary company established in a third country. The Supreme Court thus set aside the previous 2020 Judgement of the Administrative Court of Appeal. The question of whether the company in New Zealand actually qualified as the beneficial owner of the royalties for the years in question was referred to the Court of Appeal. Excerpt “1. It is clear from the documents in the file submitted to the judges of the court of first instance that the company Planet, which carries on the business of distributing sports programmes to fitness clubs, was subject to reminders of withholding tax in respect of sums described as royalties paid to the companies ... Read more
Bulgaria vs CBS, March 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 3012

Bulgaria vs CBS, March 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 3012

By judgment of 22 May 2020, the Administrative Court set aside a tax assessment in which CBS International Netherlands B.V. had been denied reimbursement of withholding tax in the amount of BGN 156 830,27 related to royalties and license payments. An appeal was filed by the tax authorities with the Supreme Administrative Court. In the appeal the tax authorities held that the beneficial owner of the licence and royalty payments was not CBS International Netherlands B.V. but instead CBS CORPORATION, a company incorporated and domiciled in New York, USA. According to the tax authorities the main function of CBS International Netherlands B.V. was that of an intermediary between the end customers and the beneficial owner. This was further supported by the transfer pricing documentation, according to which the US company that bears the risk of the development activity, the market risk is borne equally by the two companies, and the only risks borne by the Dutch company are the currency, ... Read more
Bulgaria vs CBS, October 2020, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 12349

Bulgaria vs CBS, October 2020, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 12349

By judgment of 22 May 2020, the Administrative Court set aside a tax assessment in which CBS International Netherlands B.V. had been denied reimbursement of withholding tax related to royalties and license payments. An appeal was filed by the tax authorities with the Supreme Administrative Court. In the appeal the tax authorities held that the beneficial owner of the licence and royalty payments was not CBS International Netherlands B.V. but instead CBS CORPORATION, a company incorporated and domiciled in New York, USA. According to the tax authorities the main function of CBS International Netherlands B.V. was that of an intermediary between the end customers and the beneficial owner. This was further supported by the transfer pricing documentation, according to which the US company that bears the risk of the development activity, the market risk is borne equally by the two companies, and the only risks borne by the Dutch company are the currency, operational and credit risks, which in turn ... Read more
France vs Société Planet, July 2020, CAA, Case No 18MA04302

France vs Société Planet, July 2020, CAA, Case No 18MA04302

The Administrative Court of Appeal (CAA) set aside a judgement of the administrative court and upheld the tax authorities claims of withholding taxes on royalties paid by Société Planet to companies in Belgium and Malta irrespective of the beneficial owner of those royalties being a company in New Zealand. Hence, Article 12(2) of the Franco-New Zealand tax treaty was not considered applicable to French source royalties whose beneficial owner resided in New Zealand, where they had been paid to an intermediary company established in a third country. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation France vs Planet July 2020 CAA 18MA04302 ... Read more
Russia vs ViciunaiRus LLC, April 2020, Supreme Court, Case No. A21-133/2018

Russia vs ViciunaiRus LLC, April 2020, Supreme Court, Case No. A21-133/2018

ViciunaiRus LLC was engaged in production and wholesale distribution of its products. During the inspection, the inspection concluded that the chain of contractual relations between the Company and its sole official distributor in the Russian Federation artificially had established intermediates that do not have assets and personnel. At the same time, the price of products increased by more than 20% in the course of movement along the chain of counter parties. During the period from 2012 to 2014, the tax authorities considered the inclusion of intermediaries in the sales structure to be of a artificial nature and aimed at understating the sales revenue. The taxpayer was additionally charged profit tax and VAT, and the additional tax was calculated based on the resale price at which the goods were received by the distributor. In 2012 and 2013 the transactions between the taxpayer and distributor were controlled. In 2014 they were not. The taxpayer objected to the tax authority’s decision; among other ... Read more
Taiwan vs Goodland, February 2020, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 147 of 109

Taiwan vs Goodland, February 2020, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 147 of 109

Goodland Taiwan had sold 7 machines to a local buyer via a related party in Hongkong thus avoiding taxes on sales profits. The transaction had been audited by the Taiwanese tax administration and an assessment issued. Goodland brought the case to court. The Supreme Administrative court dismissed the appeal and upheld the assessment. “The appeal alleges that the original judgment failed to conduct an investigation, but does not specify what the original judgment found to be wrong or what specific legal norm was violated. In fact, Article 2 of the Regulations Governing the Recognition of Income from Controlled Foreign Enterprises by Profit-making Enterprises, as cited in the appeal, states that Article 3 and Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Regulations Governing the Recognition of Income from Controlled Foreign Enterprises and the Unusual Transfer Pricing Check for Business Enterprises, as cited in the appeal, are all specific to the income tax law and may not be consistent with the judgment of ... Read more
Russia vs Garnet-SPb, June 2019, Court of Appeal, Case No. A56-113775/2017

Russia vs Garnet-SPb, June 2019, Court of Appeal, Case No. A56-113775/2017

Garnet-SPb was the exclusive representative of a German manufacturing company in Russia. Following introduction of restrictions on the supply of certain categories of goods to Russia by the European Union in 2014, the Company had used the services of an intermediary trading company. The intermediary offered the Company to purchase products previously purchased directly from the manufacturer. The difference between the export price of goods according to the manufacturer’s data and the price at which the goods were now purchased by the Company – through the intermediate – was over 40%. During the audit, the tax authority considered that the Company was able and actually exported the goods itself, the transition to the new delivery scheme was aimed at obtaining unjustified tax benefits in the form of overstatement of VAT deductions. The amount of additional income tax and VAT was calculated by the tax authority on the basis of the export value of these goods. The court of first instance ... Read more
Russia vs LLC "Bulatovskiy Basalt", November 2018, Court of Appeal, Case No. A05-5548/2018

Russia vs LLC “Bulatovskiy Basalt”, November 2018, Court of Appeal, Case No. A05-5548/2018

Bulatovskiy Basalt LLC extracted and sold basalt rubble. The rubble was sold to three related intermediaries, whom in turn, resold the rubble to the final buyers. The resale price was on average double the transfer price. The tax authorities considered that the sole purpose of incorporating intermediaries into the sales structure was to obtain an unreasonable tax benefit in the form of underestimation of the profits from the sale of rubble and the tax base. According to the tax authorities, Bulatovskiy Basalt LLC could instead have enter into contracts with the final buyers directly. The tax authorities issued an assessment of income based on the resale of the rubble to the final Consumers. Bulatovskiy Basalt LLC brought the case to Court. The courts of the first and second instance ruled in favor of Bulatovskiy Basalt LLC. The courts took into account the existence of reasonable reasons for the involvement of intermediaries, including the presence of real functions. The first instance ... Read more

Russia vs OJSC Mostovsky, January 2018, Court of Appeal, Case No. A23-5278/2016

OJSC Mostovsky was engaged in the extraction of sand for construction. The sand was sold to related parties who then resold the sand to final customers. The price paid by the final customers was significantly higher than price paid to Mostovsky by the related intermediaries. Following an audit for 2012-2013, the tax authority held that the setup using intermediate re-sellers was artificial and constructed to obtain an unjustified tax benefit. An assessment was issued based on the “subsequent sale price-method”. Mostovsky disapproved of the assessment and brought the case to court. In their court filing they proposed use of the CUP method. The court found that Mostovsky’s transfer prices had not being arm’s length and that an unjustified tax benefit had been obtained, but disagreed with the method chosen by the tax authority. The “Subsequent Selling Price-method” had not been applied correctly by the tax authority, since: – the inapplicability of the CUP method had not been properly justified; – ... Read more
Poland vs "K-steel S.A.", March 2012, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 1882/10

Poland vs “K-steel S.A.”, March 2012, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 1882/10

K-steel S.A. purchased steel from its parent company which again purchased steel from unrelated steel mills. The tax authorities found that prices paid to the parent company by “K-steel S.A.” were not arm’s-length. The arm’s length price was established based on the prices paid for similar steel products by unrelated companies active in similar business activities. According to the tax authorities, purchasing steel directly from manufacturers would be a better alternative in terms of prices. Judgement of the Court The Court found that the authorities correctly established that arm’s-length prices were not applied and dismissed the appeal of “K-steel S.A.”. According to the court, a option realistically available for the taxpayer, and at the same time cheaper, would be to purchase the goods in question directly from steel mills, without the participation of the parent. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation II FSK 1882_10 - Wyrok NSA z 2012-03-27 ... Read more