Tag: Loss carry forward

Italy vs Ferrari SpA, September 2022, Supreme Court, Case No 26695/2022

Italy vs Ferrari SpA, September 2022, Supreme Court, Case No 26695/2022

In February 2016 the Regional Tax Commission rejected an appeal filed by the Revenue Agency against the first instance judgment, which had upheld an appeal brought by Italian car manufacturer, Ferrari S.p.A. against a notice of assessment issued by the Revenue Agency in which the company was accused of having applied prices lower than the ‘normal value’ in transactions with its foreign subsidiaries, in particular with the US company Ferrari NA (North America). In determining the arm’s length price of the relevant controlled transactions Ferrari had applied the CUP method. The Revenue Agency considered the TNMM to be the most appropriate method. The Regional Tax Commission observed that “for verifying the “normal value”, the Revenue Agency itself, in Circular No. 32 of 22/09/1980, had suggested the use of the CUP method instead of the less reliable TNMM method “which is not advisable due to its considerable approximation and arbitrariness’ for which reason the Office’s objection must be considered inadmissible”. On ... Read more
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
Spain vs MAHOU (SAN MIGUEL) S.A., December 2021, Audiencia Nacional, Case No SAN 5537/2021 - ECLI:ES:AN:2021:5537

Spain vs MAHOU (SAN MIGUEL) S.A., December 2021, Audiencia Nacional, Case No SAN 5537/2021 – ECLI:ES:AN:2021:5537

The Mahou (SAN MIGUEL) S.A Group is active in brewing and sale of beers. Penibética de cervezas y bebidas SL and Andaluza de cervezas y bebidas SL are wholly owned by Cervezas Alhambra SL, which again is owned by MAHOU (SAN MIGUEL) S.A. The main activity of Cervezas Alhambra SL is the distribution and marketing under its own brands of the beer produced by its subsidiaries; that of Penibética de Cervezas y Bebidas SL is the production of beers which, without its own brand, are mainly distributed and marketed by Alhambra and the core activity of Andaluza de Cervezas y Bebidas S.L. is the manufacture of beers which, without its own brand, are distributed and marketed by Alhambra. In 2014, the tax authorities issued two tax assessments to the group: one in relation to FY 2008 and 2009, in the amount of €12,303,526.50 an another in relation to FY 2010, 2011, in the amount of €4,951,701.39. Among the issues raised ... Read more
Italy vs Pompea S.p.A., October 2021, Supreme Court, Case No 27636/2021

Italy vs Pompea S.p.A., October 2021, Supreme Court, Case No 27636/2021

This case deals with a non-interest bearing intragroup loan granted by Pompea S.p.A. to a foreign subsidiary and deductibility of interest expenses incurred by Pompea S.p.A. to obtain the funding needed to grant this loan to the subsidiary. The company was of the opinion that interest free inter-company loans were not covered by the Italien arm’s length provision at the time where the loan in question was established. The Italien tax authorities claimed that the arrangement was covered by the transfer pricing regulations art. 110 paragraph 7, and that an arm’s length interest had to be paid on the loan. They also found that interest on the bank loan was not deductible. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Court found that non-interest-bearing loan, was covered by the rules laid down in Article 110(7) of the TUIR (the Italien arm’s length provisions). Furthermore, the court found that the OECD 2010 TP Guidelines were unambiguous in clarifying (Chapter VII of the 2010 Guidelines, paras. 7.14 ... Read more
Skatteverket vs Holmen AB, June 2019, European Court of Justice, Case no C-608/17

Skatteverket vs Holmen AB, June 2019, European Court of Justice, Case no C-608/17

The Holmen case dealt with tax deduction of losses arising in indirectly held Spanish subsidiaries would be deductible upon liquidations of the Spanish companies. The Court clarified that final losses arising in an indirectly held subsidiary, should not be deductible for the parent company, unless all the intermediate companies between the parent company and the loss-making subsidiary are resident in the same member state as the loss-making subsidiary. In the Holmen case the facts suggest that a loss could be deductible in Sweden, as all intermediate companies were from Spain. The mere fact that the legislation of the subsidiary’s state of establishment does not allow the transfer of losses in the year of liquidation can’t, in itself, be sufficient to deem the losses as “final”. The Court also stated, that losses in foreign subsidiaries can’t be characterized as “final” if there is a possibility of deducting those losses economically in the subsidiary’s state of residence, for example by transferring them ... Read more
Skatteverket vs Memira Holding AB, June 2019, European Court of Justice, Case no C-607/17

Skatteverket vs Memira Holding AB, June 2019, European Court of Justice, Case no C-607/17

The Memira Holding case was about a crossborder merger between a loss-making German subsidiary and a Swedish parent company. The CJEU was asked to clarify whether the German losses would be deductible in Sweden after the merger had been finalized. In the Court’s view, Memira Holding may deduct the foreign losses in Sweden, but only if the Swedish parent company can demonstrate that it is impossible to use the losses in Germany in future periods. The fact that Germany does not allow losses to be taken over through a merger is thus not decisive in itself. Further possibilities to take over the losses must be assessed. The CJEU states that losses in subsidiaries can’t be characterized as “final” if there is a possibility of deducting those losses economically in the subsidiary’s state of residence, for example by transferring them to a third party. If, on the other hand, the parent company can adduce evidence to the contrary, then the losses ... 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
Denmark vs Bevola, June 2018, European Court of Justice, Case No C-650/16

Denmark vs Bevola, June 2018, European Court of Justice, Case No C-650/16

The Danish company Bevola had a PE in Finland. The PE incurred a loss when it was closed in 2009 that could not be utilized in Finland. Instead, Bevola claimed a tax deduction in its Danish tax return for 2009 for the loss suffered in Finland. A deduction of the loss was disallowed by the tax authorities because section 8(2) of the Danish Corporate Tax Act stipulates that the taxable income does not include profits and losses of foreign PEs (territoriality principle). Bevola would only be entitled to claim a tax deduction for the Finnish loss in the Danish tax return by making an election of international joint taxation under section 31 A. However, such an election means that all foreign entities must be included in the Danish tax return and the election is binding for a period of 10 years. The decision of the tax authorities was confirmed by the National Tax Tribunal on 20 January 2014. The taxpayer ... Read more
Japan vs "TH Corp", January 2017, District Court, Case No. 56 of 2014 (Gyoseu)

Japan vs “TH Corp”, January 2017, District Court, Case No. 56 of 2014 (Gyoseu)

A tax assessment based on Japanese CFC rules (anti-tax haven rules) had been applied to a “TH Corp”‘s, subsidiary in Singapore. According to Japanese CFC rules, income arising from a foreign subsidiary located in a state or territory with significantly lower tax rates is deemed to arise as the income of the parent company when the principal business of the subsidiary is holding shares or IP rights. However, the CFC rules do not apply when the subsidiary has substance and it makes economic sense to conduct business in the subsidiary in the low tax jurisdiction. Judgement of the court. According to the court, total revenue, number of employees, and fixed facilities are relevant in this determination. The Court held that the Singapore subsidiary had conducted a broad range of businesses – including finance and logistics – with the economically rational purpose of streamlining its ASEAN operations, and thus set aside the CFC taxation. Excerpt “Satisfaction of the substance and control criteria (a) According to the above-mentioned findings, A1 rents an office in Singapore and uses it for the regional ... Read more
Netherlands vs X BV, June 2016, Supreme Court, Case No 2016:1031 (14/05100)

Netherlands vs X BV, June 2016, Supreme Court, Case No 2016:1031 (14/05100)

In 1996, X BV acquired the right to commercially exploit an intangible asset (Z) for a period of 15 years for $ 63.5 million. X BV then entered into a franchise agreements with group companies for the use of Z, including a Spanish PE of Y BV. According to the franchise agreement Y BV paid X BV a fee. According to X, in the calculation of the loss carry forward in Spain the franchise fee should not be fully attributed to the PE in Spain due to existing rules on internal roaylties. X states that the loss carry forward amounts to € 13.1 million. The tax authorities increases the loss carry forward with the fee paid to X, for the use of Z by the Spanish PE. According to the tax authorities, the loss carry forward is € 16.1 million. The District Court finds that no amount needs to be taken of the fees that Y BV paid to X ... Read more