Tag: Interpretation

Singapore vs Intevac Asia Pte Ltd, October 2020, High Court, Case No [2020] SGHC 218, Tax Appeal No 3 of 2020

Singapore vs Intevac Asia Pte Ltd, October 2020, High Court, Case No [2020] SGHC 218, Tax Appeal No 3 of 2020

The Intevac group initially focused on designing and producing thin-film production systems for the manufacturing of hard disk drives (“HDD”). However, sometime in or around the mid-2000s, Intevac Asia Pte Ltd received a purchase order for a tool designed for the manufacturing of solar cells. Intevac Asia Pte Ltd did not possess the relevant R&D capabilities to develop such a tool and therefore entered into a Research and Development Services Agreement with Intevac US dated 1 October 2008 (“the RDSA”). The RDSA provided that Intevac US would undertake R&D activities in the US for the benefit of Intevac Asia Pte Ltd. In 2009, the management of the Intevac group decided to plan for the possibility that Intevac Asia Pte Ltd would expand its R&D capabilities in relation to non-HDD products. Accordingly, Intevac Asia Pte Ltd and Intevac US entered into a Cost-Sharing Agreement dated 1 November 2009 (“the CSA”), which superseded the RDSA. The purpose of the CSA was to ... Read more
Poland vs Shared Service Center, February 2020, Administrative Court, SA/PO 935/19

Poland vs Shared Service Center, February 2020, Administrative Court, SA/PO 935/19

A shared service center in Poland both provided intra-group services to the group and in doing so also received and paid for services from other group companies. At issue was payments for the services that the Shared Service Center in Poland received. Under some circumstances intra-group service costs are non-deductible in Poland according to local anti-avoidance provisions aimed at base eroding payments, and according to the tax authorities the payments for intra group services received by the Shared Service Center were non-deductible according to these anti-avoidance provisions. The tax authorities had considered that the payments for the received services were non-deductible according to these provisions. Court decision Service costs that are directly connected with provision of services that generate income, and are included in the base for remuneration of the services provided are deductable and thus not covered by the non-deduction provisions. The Company’s revenues in connection with the support provided to related entities (domestic and foreign) was calculated based ... Read more
Costa Rica vs Corrugados del Guarco S.A., March 2018, Supreme Court, Case No 13-002632-1027-CA

Costa Rica vs Corrugados del Guarco S.A., March 2018, Supreme Court, Case No 13-002632-1027-CA

Corrugados del Guarco S.A. had declared losses on controlled transactions for FY 2003, 2004 and 2005 as export prices for these transactions had been set below cost and without profit margin, and also different from the price charged for that product to other independent or unrelated companies, in favour of its related company Envases Nicaragüenses S.A. According to the Corrugados del Guarco S.A. the reason why the prices of these controlled transactions had been set low was that unfair competition had made it necessary to use a commercial strategy of selling at preferential prices to the group company in Nicaragua. The tax authorities issued an assessment whereby the prices of the controlled transactions were adjusted in accordance with the arm’s length principle. Furthermore a fine was issued to the company for gross negligence. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Court dismissed the appeal of Corrugados del Guarco S.A. Excerpts from the Judgement “…Finally, and in relation to transfer pricing, on which the ... Read more
Sweden vs. taxpayer april 2016, Swedish Supreme Administrative Court, HFD 2016 ref. 23

Sweden vs. taxpayer april 2016, Swedish Supreme Administrative Court, HFD 2016 ref. 23

The Swedish Supreme Administrative Court makes it clear that OECD guidelines can be used for interpreting Swedish domestic legislation in cases where the domestic legislation is based on OECD guidance and principles. It is also concluded, that the fact that an agreement is given a certain legal term does not mean that the Court is bound by that classification. It is the substance of the agreement – based on the facts and circumstances – that matters. Click here for translation Sweden-vs-Corp-HFD-2016-ref.-23 ... Read more
Germany vs. "Loss and Limitation Gmbh", November 2015, Supreme Tax Court judgment I R 57/13

Germany vs. “Loss and Limitation Gmbh”, November 2015, Supreme Tax Court judgment I R 57/13

There are a number of exceptions to the German interest limitation rule essentially limiting the annual interest deduction to 30% of EBITDA as shown in the accounts. One of these is the equity ratio rule exempting a subsidiary company from the interest limitation provided its equity ratio (ratio of shareholder’s equity to the balance sheet total) is no more than two percentage points lower than that of the group and no more than 10% of its net interest cost was paid to any one significant shareholder (a shareholder owning more than 25% of the share capital). A loss-making company paying slightly less than 10% of its total net interest cost to each of two significant shareholders claimed exemption from the interest limitation as its equity ratio was better than that of the group. The tax office applied the limitation as the two significant shareholders together received more than 10% of the net interest cost. The finance ministry decree on the ... Read more
Costa Rica vs Polymer S. A., June 2012, Supreme Court, Case No 11-010227-0007-CO

Costa Rica vs Polymer S. A., June 2012, Supreme Court, Case No 11-010227-0007-CO

Polymer S.A. had been issued an assessment of taxable income based on the arm’s length principle. In the assessment the tax authorities had based the adjustment on the guidance provided in the OECD TPG. Polymer S.A. was of the opinion that this was unconstitutional since the OECD TPG had not been implemented by law and Costa Rica was not an OECD member country. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Court dismissed the appeal of Polymer S.A. Excerpts from the Judgement “The contested Guideline does not establish or impose a single method of transfer pricing analysis, so that, in the absence of a law, the autonomy of tax law allows for the determination of the tax payable to resort to the provisions of Articles 8 and 12 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, without prejudice to the possibility that other – better – techniques may be admitted. What is important is that the contested Interpretative Guideline does not aim ... Read more
Costa Rica vs Nestlé, April 2012, Supreme Court, Case No 10-017768-0007-CO Res. Nº 2012004940

Costa Rica vs Nestlé, April 2012, Supreme Court, Case No 10-017768-0007-CO Res. Nº 2012004940

In an appeal to the Supreme Court in Costa Rica, Nestlé claimed that the basis for an arm’s length adjustment was unconstitutional, since the arms length principle as described in the OECD transfer pricing guidelines had not been incorporated into the laws of Costa Rica. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Court dismissed the appeal of Nestlé. “The contested Guideline does not establish or impose a single method of transfer pricing analysis, so that, in the absence of a law, the autonomy of tax law allows for the determination of the tax payable to resort to the provisions of Articles 8 and 12 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, without prejudice to the possibility of admitting “other -better- techniques”. What is important is that the contested Interpretative Guideline does not aim to eliminate other multiple scenarios arising from different forms of company organisation, but is directed at transfer pricing between related companies. Even if the legislator may adopt ... Read more