Tag: Low risk distributor

Russia vs Suzuki Motors, August 2016, Arbitration Court, Case No. А40-50654/13

Russia vs Suzuki Motors, August 2016, Arbitration Court, Case No. А40-50654/13

A Russian subsidiary of the Suzuki/Itochu group had been loss making in 2009. Following an audit the tax authority concluded, that the losses incurred by the Russian distributor were due to non-arm’s length transfer pricing within the group and excessive deduction of costs. Decision of the Court The Court decided in favor of the tax authorities and upheld the assessment. “In view of the above, the appeal court considers that the courts’ conclusions that the Inspectorate had not proved that it was impossible to apply the first method for determining the market price and that the Inspectorate had incorrectly applied the resale price method were unfounded.” “In this light, the courts’ conclusions that the Inspectorate incorrectly applied the second method of determining the market price are unfounded.” “In such circumstances, the Inspectorate’s conclusion on the overstatement of the purchase price of vehicles is based on the application of market data and made in compliance with Article 40 of the Tax ... Read more
Russia vs Hyundai Motors, January 2016, Supreme Court, Case No. А40-50654/13

Russia vs Hyundai Motors, January 2016, Supreme Court, Case No. А40-50654/13

A Russian subsidiary of the car manufacturer group HYUNDAI had been claiming losses on a reoccurring basis. Following an audit the tax authority concluded, that the losses incurred by the Russian distributor were mainly due to non-arm’s length transfer pricing within the group of companies and issued an assessment for FY 2009 – 2010 in the amount of 857 741 779 rubles. The assessment was partially  upheld by the Arbitration Court and then appealed to the Supreme Court. Decision of the Russian Supreme Court The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal lodged by HYUNDAI. “In checking the calculation of the market price of the goods, the court, having assessed whether the data given in the calculation of the market price for the acquisition of the vehicles corresponded to the data contained in the primary documents, came to the conclusion that the calculation presented by the inspectorate was justified. The court considered that the tax authority had made the calculation on the ... Read more
Russia vs Mazda Motors, October 2015, Supreme Court, Case No. А40-4381/13

Russia vs Mazda Motors, October 2015, Supreme Court, Case No. А40-4381/13

A Russian subsidiary of the Mazda Motors Group had been claiming losses. Following an audit the tax authorities concluded that losses for FY 2009, was due to overstatement of the purchase prices of Mazda cars. An assessment was issued where the pricing was determined using the Resale Price Method, resulting in additional income of 1,362,172,034 rubles. The Arbitration Court held in favor of the tax authorities and this decision was upheld by the Arbitration Court of Appeal. The decision was then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the appeal and upheld the decision of the Arbitration Court. Click here for English Translation RSC Mazda A40-4381-2013_20151014 ... Read more
Russia vs Hyundai Motors, October 2015, Arbitration Court of Moscow, Case No. А40-50654/13

Russia vs Hyundai Motors, October 2015, Arbitration Court of Moscow, Case No. А40-50654/13

A Russian subsidiary of the car manufacturer group HYUNDAI had been claiming losses in fiscal years 2008 and 2009. In the opinion of the tax authority, losses incurred by the Russian distributor were mainly due to non-arm’s length transfer pricing within the group of companies. Decision of the Russian Arbitration Court According to the court, the applied transfer pricing method is not applicable in the present case. A comparison with wholesalers in the Russian automotive market cannot be made, it said. The reason for this is the common sales strategy of automotive groups in Russia. Almost all non-Russian manufacturers distribute their automobiles through affiliated wholesale companies, which in turn purchase the vehicles from affiliated companies abroad. The only exceptions in this context are currently companies such as Volkswagen or BMW, which operate their own production facilities in Russia. Therefore, a reliable identification of comparable business transactions with regard to independent Russian importers is not possible. The second conclusion of the ... Read more
Russia vs Mazda Motors, March 2015, Arbitration Court of Moscow, Case No. А40-4381/13

Russia vs Mazda Motors, March 2015, Arbitration Court of Moscow, Case No. А40-4381/13

A Russian subsidiary of the Mazda Motors Group had been claiming losses. In the opinion of the tax authority, the losses incurred by the Russian distributor were mainly due to non-arm’s length transfer pricing within the group of companies. An assessment was issued where the pricing had been determined using the Resale Price Method. Decision of the Russian Arbitration Court “Having evaluated the arguments of the parties and the evidence presented in the case, taking into account the provisions of Art. 71 APC RF, the appeal court considers the conclusions of the court of first instance as motivated, consistent with the circumstances of the case and the requirements of the law. In the presence of these circumstances, the claims claimed by the company were rightly rejected by the court of first instance. Thus, the decision of the court is legal and justified, corresponds to the materials of the case and the current legislation, in connection with which it is not ... Read more
France vs. Ballantine's Mumm Distribution, Dec 2012, CAA no 10PA00748

France vs. Ballantine’s Mumm Distribution, Dec 2012, CAA no 10PA00748

Ballantine’s Mumm Distribution (later – Société de participations et d’études des boissons sans alcool or SOPEBSA), is a French wholesaler of beverages, and was, until 1999, a fully fledged distributor on the French market of the products from the English company Allied Domecq Spirits and Wine Limited (ADSW). Both companies are owned by the Allied Domecq PLC group. By a commission contract entered into 12 April 1999, Ballantine’s Mumm Distribution continued to market the products of Allied Domecq Spirits and Wines Limited in France but now as a commission agent. Following an audit for FY 1997 to 2000, the tax administration considered that Ballantine’s Mumm Distribution had, for the financial year ending in 2000, on the one hand, unduly borne an expense relating to a goods insurance contract, and on the other hand, transferred its clientele to Allied Domecq Spirits and Wine Limited without consideration. The tax authorities considered that these transactions were part of an abnormal management constituting a ... Read more
Germany vs "Loss Distributor GmbH", April 2005, Bundesfinanzhof, I R 22/04

Germany vs “Loss Distributor GmbH”, April 2005, Bundesfinanzhof, I R 22/04

The Bundesfinanzhof confirmed that losses incurred by a simpel distribution entity over a longer period of time trigger a rebuttable presumption in Germany that transfer prices have not been at arm’s length. A German company, Loss Distributor GmbH, imported goods from their Swiss sister company S-AG and had made continious losses over a period of time. The tax authorities found that the purchase prices paid to the S-AG had increased since 1989 and that the German company could not fully pass on the increased purchase price to its customers. Since at the same time the price of the Swiss franc had fallen since 1989, the purchase prices paid to the S-AG in the years of the dispute had been inflated and currency gains had been transferred to Switzerland in this way. A tax assessment was therefor issued. The German company appeal the assessment to the Bundesfinanzhof. The Federal Tax Court ruled in favor of the tax authorities. Click here for English translation Click here for other ... 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