Tag: Management fee

Intra-group charge for centralised services — strategic oversight, HR, finance, IT, or administration — provided by a parent or regional hub. Disputes centre on whether services were actually rendered, confer benefit, and whether the fee reflects arm’s length pricing under OECD TPG Chapter VII.

Tanzania vs Williamson Diamonds Limited, July 2025, Court of Appeal, Case No. 2025 TZCA 720 (Civil Appeal No 436 of 2023)

Tanzania vs Williamson Diamonds Limited, July 2025, Court of Appeal, Case No. 2025 TZCA 720 (Civil Appeal No 436 of 2023)

Williamson Diamonds Limited, operator of a major Tanzanian diamond mine, disputed transfer pricing adjustments made by the tax authorities over intra-group diamond sales and management fees paid abroad. The authorities disallowed deductions for inadequately documented service charges. The Tax Appeals Tribunal and Tanzania Court of Appeal upheld the assessments in 2025, finding the company failed to provide sufficient comparability analysis under Tanzanian transfer pricing regulations ... Read more
Portugal vs "Drilling LDA", May 2025, Central Administrative Court, Case No 87/19.2BEFUN

Portugal vs “Drilling LDA”, May 2025, Central Administrative Court, Case No 87/19.2BEFUN

A Portuguese drilling company paid approximately €3.95 million in management fees to a related Maltese entity under a services agreement covering administrative, financial, legal and operational support. The Tax Authority disallowed the deductions citing the indispensability test, lack of substance, and simulation. Portugal's Central Administrative Court dismissed the appeal in 2025, confirming that the authority could not deny deductibility without properly applying transfer pricing rules or proving a breach of the arm's length principle ... Read more
Greece vs “Retail S.A.”, April 2025, Administrative Tribunal, Case No 1029/2025

Greece vs “Retail S.A.”, April 2025, Administrative Tribunal, Case No 1029/2025

A Greek retailer deducted royalties for trademarks and know-how and management service fees paid to a Dutch affiliate. The tax authority disallowed both, citing vague contracts, lack of proven benefit, and a flawed CUP study that ignored internal licensing comparables. The Administrative Tribunal upheld the assessment in April 2025, finding the documentation inadequate and the transfer pricing study non-compliant with OECD Guidelines ... Read more
Greece vs ΧΑΜΙΩ ΑΒΕΕ, March 2025, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No Α464/2025 (ECLI:EL:COS:2025:0319A464.21E777)

Greece vs ΧΑΜΙΩ ΑΒΕΕ, March 2025, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No Α464/2025 (ECLI:EL:COS:2025:0319A464.21E777)

A Greek company appealed the disallowance of intra-group management service fees deducted in its 2013 taxable profits. The company argued the tax authority had improperly shifted the burden of proof. Greece's Supreme Administrative Court rejected the appeal in 2025, ruling that the burden of proving deductibility rested with the taxpayer and that the invoices, contracts, and supporting documents lacked sufficient specificity to establish a genuine link to business activity ... Read more
Greece vs Hamios S.A., March 2025, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No A464/2025

Greece vs Hamios S.A., March 2025, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No A464/2025

A Greek company sought to deduct management service fees paid to group entities, but the tax authority disallowed the expenses due to vague contracts and insufficient documentation. The Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the assessment, finding the company had not proven the services were actually rendered or served its business needs. In March 2025, the Greek Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the company's appeal, confirming the fees were correctly treated as non-deductible ... Read more
Kenya vs Stefanutti Stocks Kenya Limited, March 2025, Tax Appeal Tribunal, Case No [2025] KETAT 185 (KLR)

Kenya vs Stefanutti Stocks Kenya Limited, March 2025, Tax Appeal Tribunal, Case No [2025] KETAT 185 (KLR)

A Kenyan subsidiary of a South African construction group claimed deductions for expatriate salary costs totalling Kshs 46 million in FY 2013. The Kenya Revenue Authority disallowed the deductions for insufficient documentation. On remittal from the High Court, the Tax Appeal Tribunal upheld the disallowance in 2025, finding that intercompany invoices alone were inadequate without employment contracts, assignment letters, or work permits ... Read more
Kenya vs Ola Energy Kenya Limited, November 2024, Tax Appeals Tribunal, Case no. (Tribunal Appeal E702 of 2023) [2024] KETAT 1622 (KLR)

Kenya vs Ola Energy Kenya Limited, November 2024, Tax Appeals Tribunal, Case no. (Tribunal Appeal E702 of 2023) [2024] KETAT 1622 (KLR)

Kenya Revenue Authority issued corporation tax assessments against Ola Energy Kenya Limited covering 2011 to 2016, challenging management fees and petroleum procurement margins from related parties. The Tax Appeals Tribunal set aside all assessments in November 2024, finding they were issued in breach of the applicable statutes of limitations, rendering the substantive transfer pricing arguments moot ... Read more
Uganda vs SMEC International Ltd., November 2024, Tax Appeals Tribunal, Application No. 75 OF 2019

Uganda vs SMEC International Ltd., November 2024, Tax Appeals Tribunal, Application No. 75 OF 2019

An Australian engineering consultancy's Ugandan branch disputed the disallowance of head office cost allocations, overhead recharges, and regional office charges for 2011–2016. The Uganda Tax Appeals Tribunal found in favour of the tax authority in 2024, ruling that SMEC International failed to provide adequate documentation proving the services were actually rendered and satisfied the benefit test ... Read more
Slovakia vs Minebea Access Solutions Slovakia s.r.o., September 2024, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. 2Sfk/36/2023

Slovakia vs Minebea Access Solutions Slovakia s.r.o., September 2024, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. 2Sfk/36/2023

A Slovak contract manufacturer within the Valeo group was subject to a transfer pricing adjustment by the tax authorities, who applied TNMM with an interquartile range and median benchmark and disallowed deductions for intra-group management and technical service fees. The Administrative Court rejected the company's appeal, and the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the further appeal in September 2024, fully upholding the tax authority's assessment ... Read more
Uganda vs Crane Autos Ltd (in liquidation) and 5 others, July 2024, High Court, Case No. 0026 of 2024

Uganda vs Crane Autos Ltd (in liquidation) and 5 others, July 2024, High Court, Case No. 0026 of 2024

The Uganda Revenue Authority sought to pierce the corporate veils of five commonly owned and directed companies allegedly used to conceal assets and evade over UGX 20 billion in taxes. Profits from Ural truck sales were shifted offshore through a Dubai branch, with management fees and bonuses paid without withholding tax. The Uganda High Court ruled in favour of the tax authority in 2024, finding deliberate misuse of the corporate form to frustrate tax recovery ... Read more
Eswatini vs "Eswatini Distributor Ltd.", July 2024, Revenue Appeals Tribunal, Case No RATE/IT012/23

Eswatini vs “Eswatini Distributor Ltd.”, July 2024, Revenue Appeals Tribunal, Case No RATE/IT012/23

A wholly owned subsidiary of a South African multinational deducted management fees paid to its parent for intra-group services. The Eswatini tax authority disallowed part of the deduction, citing insufficient documentation, duplicated and shareholder services, inappropriate allocation keys, and tax avoidance under Section 65 of the ITO. The Revenue Appeals Tribunal upheld the assessment in favour of the tax authority in July 2024 ... Read more
Poland vs D. Sp. z oo, July 2024, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 1228/22

Poland vs D. Sp. z oo, July 2024, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 1228/22

A Polish company deducted interest on intra-group loans and management fees paid to a related Delaware entity for FY 2015. The tax authority denied both deductions, arguing the loans were artificial tax-avoidance arrangements and the management fees lacked sufficient substance. Poland's Supreme Administrative Court ruled in favour of the taxpayer, overturning the assessment in this 2024 decision ... Read more
Kenya vs Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, June 2024, Tax Appeal Tribunal, Case No [2024] KETAT 1040 (KLR)

Kenya vs Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, June 2024, Tax Appeal Tribunal, Case No [2024] KETAT 1040 (KLR)

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft's Kenyan permanent establishment applied a 3% net cost plus margin based on its limited-risk profile, but Kenya's Tax Appeal Tribunal upheld the tax authority's assessments in 2024, applying a benchmark median of 6.94%. The Tribunal found Siemens failed to discharge its burden of proof and ruled that allocated head office costs constituted management fees subject to withholding tax under Kenyan law ... Read more
Italy vs Gru Comedil s.r.l., March 2024, Supreme Court, Case No 6584/2024

Italy vs Gru Comedil s.r.l., March 2024, Supreme Court, Case No 6584/2024

Italian tax authorities disallowed Gru Comedil s.r.l.'s deduction of intra-group management service costs, arguing insufficient documentation of actual benefit received. The case reached Italy's Supreme Court, which overturned the assessment in 2024, confirming that intra-group service costs are deductible where the recipient derives actual, objectively determinable utility that is adequately documented, ruling in favour of the taxpayer ... Read more
Chile vs Walmart Chile S.A., March 2024, Court of Appeal, Case No 272-2023

Chile vs Walmart Chile S.A., March 2024, Court of Appeal, Case No 272-2023

Walmart Chile S.A. deducted costs for inter-group management, marketing, and advertising services, along with interest on an intra-group loan, in its 2014 and 2015 tax returns. The Chilean tax authority disallowed these deductions following an audit. The Tax Court largely sided with the authority, and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision in March 2024, confirming the disallowances due to insufficient documentation ... Read more
Poland vs "W.W.P.H. sp. z o. o", January 2024, Administrative Court, Case No I SA/Bd 614/23

Poland vs “W.W.P.H. sp. z o. o”, January 2024, Administrative Court, Case No I SA/Bd 614/23

A Polish company was denied deductions for intra-group loan interest and management fees following a tax authority audit, which deemed the loan economically irrational and the services unsubstantiated. The Administrative Court ruled in favour of the taxpayer in January 2024, finding that Polish arm's length rules provided no legal basis to disregard controlled transactions in 2017, as such provisions were only introduced for financial years from 2019 onwards ... Read more
India vs Herbalife International India, November 2023, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - “A’’ BENCH,  IT(TP)A No.1406/Bang/2010

India vs Herbalife International India, November 2023, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – “A’’ BENCH, IT(TP)A No.1406/Bang/2010

Herbalife International India paid royalties and management fees to its US parent, HLI Inc., benchmarked using TNMM. The Indian tax authorities denied administrative service deductions and reduced royalty payments. The Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed Herbalife's appeal, but the High Court found the Tribunal's evidence findings unsustainable and remanded the case for reexamination by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in 2023 ... Read more
Romania vs A. S.A, May 2023, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 2594/2023

Romania vs A. S.A, May 2023, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 2594/2023

A Romanian company claimed deductions for gas and strategy consulting services purchased from related parties. Tax authorities denied part of those deductions under the arm's length principle. The court of first instance ruled for the taxpayer, relying heavily on an expert report. Romania's Supreme Administrative Court set aside that decision in May 2023, finding the lower court had reproduced the expert report verbatim without independent legal reasoning, and remanded the case for reconsideration ... Read more
US vs Skechers USA Inc., February 2023, Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission, Nos. 10-I-171 AND 10-I-172

US vs Skechers USA Inc., February 2023, Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission, Nos. 10-I-171 AND 10-I-172

Skechers USA transferred IP to a related Delaware entity, SKII, then licensed it back and claimed Wisconsin franchise tax deductions for royalties, management fees, and interest. The Wisconsin Department of Revenue disallowed the deductions, finding the arrangement lacked any valid non-tax business purpose and economic substance. The Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission upheld the Department's assessments in 2023, ruling entirely in favour of the tax authority ... Read more
Spain vs "SGGE W T Spanish branch", January 2023, TEAC, Case No Rec. 00/07503/2020/00/00

Spain vs “SGGE W T Spanish branch”, January 2023, TEAC, Case No Rec. 00/07503/2020/00/00

A Spanish branch performing IT distribution and marketing activities was assessed by tax authorities who adjusted its income to the median of a TNMM benchmark range and disallowed intra-group service fee deductions. The branch appealed, and Spain's TEAC partially upheld the appeal in January 2023, finding deficiencies in the tax authority's comparability analysis and burden of proof regarding the interquartile range adjustment ... Read more
Malaysia vs Multi Square Sdn Bhd, November 2022, High Court, Case No WA-14-11-04/2021

Malaysia vs Multi Square Sdn Bhd, November 2022, High Court, Case No WA-14-11-04/2021

A Malaysian paint and chemical solvent manufacturer paid management fees to its holding company under service agreements covering corporate, HR, and IT functions. The tax authority disallowed the deductions, finding the services unsubstantiated and forming part of normal holding company responsibilities. The Special Commissioners and the Malaysia High Court both upheld the disallowance and associated penalties in November 2022 ... Read more
Denmark vs. "C-Advisory Business ApS", November 2022, Supreme Court, Case No BS-22176/2021-HJR (SKM2023.8.HR)

Denmark vs. “C-Advisory Business ApS”, November 2022, Supreme Court, Case No BS-22176/2021-HJR (SKM2023.8.HR)

A Danish advisory company paid DKK 78.7 million in service fees to a related Dubai entity owned by the same sole shareholder across 2006–2010. The Danish tax authorities challenged the pricing as non-arm's length and reduced allowable fees to DKK 20 million. The Supreme Court upheld the discretionary assessment in November 2022, confirming that inadequate transfer pricing documentation justified the authority's adjustment ... Read more
Poland vs "H. LVAS Sp. z oo", September 2022, Administrative Court, Case No  I SA / Go 234/22

Poland vs “H. LVAS Sp. z oo”, September 2022, Administrative Court, Case No I SA / Go 234/22

A Polish subsidiary deducted expenses for management and support services provided by its German parent, classified as low value-adding services. The tax authority disallowed the deductions due to insufficient documentation linking specific services to the invoiced amounts. The Administrative Court found the assessment flawed and remanded the case for re-examination, emphasising that inadequate transfer pricing documentation may justify income estimation ... Read more
US vs Aspro Inc., April 2022, Eight Circuit, No. 21-1996

US vs Aspro Inc., April 2022, Eight Circuit, No. 21-1996

An asphalt-paving company claimed deductions for management fees paid to its three shareholders over tax years 2012 to 2014, having paid no dividends since the 1970s. The IRS disallowed the deductions, arguing the fees were disguised profit distributions rather than payments for ordinary and necessary business services. The US Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the tax authority's position in April 2022, finding the company failed to meet its burden of proof ... Read more
Poland vs D. Sp. z oo, April 2022, Administrative Court, Case No I SA/Bd 128/22

Poland vs D. Sp. z oo, April 2022, Administrative Court, Case No I SA/Bd 128/22

A Polish company deducted interest on intra-group loans and management fee expenses for FY 2015, with both arrangements involving a related Delaware entity. The tax authority denied the deductions, finding the loan structure artificial and the management fees insufficiently substantiated. The Polish Administrative Court upheld the authority's assessment in April 2022, confirming that transactions lacking genuine commercial rationale may be disregarded for tax purposes ... Read more
Costa Rica vs British Tobacco Centroamérica S.A. March 2022, Supreme Court, Case No 750-2022

Costa Rica vs British Tobacco Centroamérica S.A. March 2022, Supreme Court, Case No 750-2022

British Tobacco Centroamérica S.A. imported goods from a related foreign company under a sales contract that also covered consultancy services, including marketing studies and sales campaigns. Costa Rica's tax authority identified discrepancies between declared customs values and invoice values, then assessed additional withholding tax on source income. The Costa Rica Supreme Court dismissed the company's appeal in 2022 and upheld the withholding tax assessment in full ... Read more
Portugal vs "A S.A.", March 2022, CAAD - Administrative Tribunal, Case No : 213/2021-T

Portugal vs “A S.A.”, March 2022, CAAD – Administrative Tribunal, Case No : 213/2021-T

A Portuguese energy efficiency company paid intra-group loans at 3.22 times Euribor plus a 14% spread to its shareholders, and also paid related-party service fees. The tax authority assessed both charges as non-arm's length. The Administrative Tribunal (CAAD) dismissed the taxpayer's complaint in March 2022, upholding the assessment after finding the company had failed to demonstrate it had sought or been refused third-party financing ... Read more
France vs Rayonnages de France, February 2022, CAA of Douai, No 19DA01682

France vs Rayonnages de France, February 2022, CAA of Douai, No 19DA01682

A French company paid royalties and management fees to a related Portuguese entity, which the French tax authorities disallowed as deductions for FY 2010–2012. The CAA of Douai upheld the first-instance ruling in favour of the tax authority in February 2022, finding that the management services invoiced were duplicative of statutory management duties and that no evidence of distinct or additional services had been provided ... Read more
Spain vs Sierra Spain Shopping Centers Services S.L.U., January 2022, National Court, Case No SAN 151/2022 - ECLI:ES:AN:2022:151

Spain vs Sierra Spain Shopping Centers Services S.L.U., January 2022, National Court, Case No SAN 151/2022 – ECLI:ES:AN:2022:151

A Spanish subsidiary of a multinational shopping centre group deducted fees for strategic management and marketing services provided by a related Portuguese entity. The Spanish tax authority disallowed both deductions, citing lack of contracts and classifying marketing costs as shareholder expenses. The National Court in 2022 upheld the disallowance of management fees due to insufficient documentation but ruled in favour of the taxpayer on the marketing services deduction ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.18

The fact that a payment was made to an associated enterprise for purported services can be useful in determining whether services were in fact provided, but the mere description of a payment as, for example, “management fees” should not be expected to be treated as prima facie evidence that such services have been rendered. At the same time, the absence of payments or contractual agreements does not automatically lead to the conclusion that no intra-group services have been rendered ... Read more
Zimbabwe vs IAB Company, January 2022, High Court, Judgment No. HH 32-22 ITC 17/17

Zimbabwe vs IAB Company, January 2022, High Court, Judgment No. HH 32-22 ITC 17/17

A Zimbabwean subsidiary deducted fees paid to its parent company for management services covering tax years 2010 to 2015. The tax authority denied the deductions after an audit found insufficient evidence that the services were actually rendered. The Zimbabwe High Court upheld the assessment in 2022, dismissing the taxpayer's appeal and affirming the benefit test as the appropriate standard for evaluating intra-group service fee deductions ... Read more
Nigeria vs Nigeria LNG Limited, December 2021, Tax Appeal Tribunal, Case No TAT/LZ/WHT/028/2018

Nigeria vs Nigeria LNG Limited, December 2021, Tax Appeal Tribunal, Case No TAT/LZ/WHT/028/2018

Nigeria LNG Limited routed management fee payments to Shell's shipping arm through a Bermuda subsidiary, arguing the fees were offshore reimbursements exempt from Nigerian withholding tax. The Federal Inland Revenue Service challenged the arrangement as artificial. The Tax Appeal Tribunal agreed in December 2021, holding the Bermuda entity was a conduit, the fees were Nigeria-sourced, and withholding tax plus penalties applied ... Read more
Greece vs "GSS Ltd.", December 2021, Administrative Tribunal, Case No 4450/2021

Greece vs “GSS Ltd.”, December 2021, Administrative Tribunal, Case No 4450/2021

A Greek company challenged a €1.26 million tax assessment for FY 2017 covering transfer pricing adjustments on intra-group loan interest rates, royalty payments, management fees, and losses on share disposals. The tax authority argued the share transactions lacked commercial substance and were used to indirectly write off unrecoverable debts. The Administrative Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the assessment in full, ruling in favour of the tax authority ... Read more
Colombia vs Interoil Colombia Exploration and Production S.A., September 2021, The Administrative Court, Case No. 24282

Colombia vs Interoil Colombia Exploration and Production S.A., September 2021, The Administrative Court, Case No. 24282

A Colombian oil and gas subsidiary deducted exploration costs and management fees paid to its foreign parent as operating expenses. The tax authority disallowed both deductions, arguing exploration costs should be recorded as deferred assets amortised over five years under the Tax Statute, and that administrative service fees failed the benefit test. The Administrative Court upheld the assessment in favour of the tax authority in 2021 ... Read more
Indonesia vs PT Mondelez Indonesia, July 2021, Supreme Court, Case No. 2031/B/PK/PJK/2021

Indonesia vs PT Mondelez Indonesia, July 2021, Supreme Court, Case No. 2031/B/PK/PJK/2021

Following a transfer pricing audit of PT Mondelez Indonesia, the tax authorities sought corrections to cost of goods sold, deemed income on marketing expenses, and management service fees for tax year 2015. The Tax Court partially set aside the assessment, and the Supreme Court dismissed the tax authority's subsequent appeal in July 2021, ruling that the marketing activities aligned with Mondelez's functions and that no proper IP value measurement had been conducted ... Read more
Bulgaria vs Central Hydroelectric de Bulgari EOOD, July 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 8331

Bulgaria vs Central Hydroelectric de Bulgari EOOD, July 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 8331

A Bulgarian energy company disputed a tax assessment for FY 2012–2017 disallowing deductions for intra-group administrative, legal, financial, and technical services. The tax authority argued the services failed the benefit test or constituted shareholder activities. The Supreme Administrative Court in July 2021 partially upheld the lower court ruling, confirming most disallowances and deciding largely in favour of the tax authority ... Read more
Denmark vs. "Advisory business ApS", June 2021, Court of Appeal, Case No SKM2021.335.OLR

Denmark vs. “Advisory business ApS”, June 2021, Court of Appeal, Case No SKM2021.335.OLR

A Danish company providing legal services paid management fees to a foreign sister company controlled by its owner. The Danish tax authority challenged the pricing as non-arm's length and found the transfer pricing documentation deficient, issuing a discretionary assessment of DKK 58.4 million. The Danish Court of Appeal upheld the authority's position in 2021, confirming the use of the TNMM benchmarked against 25 comparable firms ... Read more
Philippines vs Snowy Owl Energy Inc, March 2021, Tax Court, CTA CASE No. 9618

Philippines vs Snowy Owl Energy Inc, March 2021, Tax Court, CTA CASE No. 9618

Snowy Owl Energy Inc paid sub-consultant fees to a Hong Kong-based, BVI-registered firm under a 2013 consultancy agreement. The Philippine tax authorities assessed deficiency income tax and final withholding tax on those payments. The Tax Court decided in favour of the taxpayer in 2021, ruling that fees for services performed outside the Philippines are foreign-source income and therefore not subject to Philippine income tax or withholding tax ... Read more
France vs Bluestar Silicones France, Feb 2021, Supreme Administrative Court (CAA), Case No 16VE00352

France vs Bluestar Silicones France, Feb 2021, Supreme Administrative Court (CAA), Case No 16VE00352

Bluestar Silicones France was audited for financial years 2007–2008 after tax authorities found it had failed to invoice management expenses and employee secondment costs to its Chinese and Brazilian subsidiaries. The company argued no hidden profit transfer had occurred and cited heavy group investment losses. France's Court of Appeal ruled mostly in favour of the tax authority, upholding the reassessment on uncharged intra-group services ... Read more
Bulgaria vs Montupet, January 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 630

Bulgaria vs Montupet, January 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 630

A Bulgarian subsidiary of the French Montupet Group deducted fees paid to its parent under a 2017 services agreement covering strategy, legal, HR, and technical advice. The tax authority disallowed the deductions, finding most services constituted shareholder or duplicated activities failing the benefit test. Bulgaria's Supreme Administrative Court remanded the case for reexamination in January 2021 ... Read more

Mining Company Oyu Tolgoi LLC receives a second Tax Assessment from the Mongolian Tax Authority

The Oyu Tolgoi copper-gold mine is a joint venture between Turquoise Hill Resources (which is 50.8 per cent owned by Rio Tinto), and the Mongolian Government. The Mongolian government has not been satisfied by the result of the joint venture and has concerns that increasing development costs of the Oyu Tolgoi project has eroded the economic benefits it anticipated receiving. “It is calculated that Mongolia will not receive dividend payments until 2051 and will incur debts of US$22 billion,” said Mongolia’s deputy chief cabinet secretary, Solongoo Bayarsaikhan. “In addition, Oyu Tolgoi is estimated to pay profit taxes or corporate income taxes only in four years until 2051.” The Mongolian authorities has put forward proposals to coordinate and lower management services received from Rio Tinto and increase Mongolia’s benefits by reducing shareholder loan interest rates. On December 23, 2020 the Mongolian Tax Authority issued a press release concerning the results of a completed transfer pricing audit of Oyu Tologi LLC. “The ... Read more
Peru - report on use of the most appropriate method to determine the market value of services

Peru – report on use of the most appropriate method to determine the market value of services

In december 2020 the tax authorities in Peru issued a new administrative ordinance related to use of the most appropriate method to determine the market value of services. Click here for English translation ... Read more
Tanzania vs Mantra (Tanzania) Limited, August 2020, Court of Appeal, Case No 430 of 2020

Tanzania vs Mantra (Tanzania) Limited, August 2020, Court of Appeal, Case No 430 of 2020

A Tanzanian mining company sought a refund of over USD 1.4 million in withholding taxes paid on services performed outside Tanzania by non-resident providers, arguing Article 7 of the Tanzania-South Africa DTA applied. The tax authority refused the refund, asserting the services had a Tanzanian source. The Court of Appeal upheld the tax authority's position in 2020, finding Article 7 inapplicable and confirming the withholding tax liability ... Read more
Kenya vs Kenya Fluospar Company Ltd, February 2020, High Court of Kenya, Case NO.3 OF 2018 AND NO.2 OF 2018

Kenya vs Kenya Fluospar Company Ltd, February 2020, High Court of Kenya, Case NO.3 OF 2018 AND NO.2 OF 2018

Kenya Fluospar Company Ltd faced tax authority assessments over VAT and transfer pricing concerning leased mining equipment, mining services, and management fees paid to a Jersey Island entity. The tax authorities appealed a Tax Tribunal decision to the High Court of Kenya, arguing TNMM should be replaced with the profit split method. The High Court dismissed the appeal in 2020, confirming that taxpayers, not the Commissioner, have the right to select the most appropriate transfer pricing method ... Read more
France vs SAS Groupe Lagasse Europe, January 2020, CCA de VERSAILLES, Case No. 18VE00059 18VE02329

France vs SAS Groupe Lagasse Europe, January 2020, CCA de VERSAILLES, Case No. 18VE00059 18VE02329

A French subsidiary of a Canadian group paid service fees to a related Canadian company, but failed to demonstrate any benefit received. The French tax authorities disallowed the deductions as indirect profit transfers under Article 57 of the general tax code. The Versailles Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the tax authority's position in January 2020, finding the taxpayer had not discharged its burden of proof ... Read more
Switzerland vs "Bank A SA", December 2019, Federal Supreme Court, Case No 2C_1073/2018 and 2C_1089/2018

Switzerland vs “Bank A SA”, December 2019, Federal Supreme Court, Case No 2C_1073/2018 and 2C_1089/2018

A Swiss bank's Guernsey subsidiary received management and performance fees for fund administration, delegating activities to the Swiss parent and third parties. While both received equal management fees, only third parties received performance fees. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court ruled in December 2019 that third-party terms constituted the arm's length benchmark, confirming that 70% of performance fees should have been paid to the Swiss parent company ... Read more
Spain vs ARW Enterprise Computin Solution SA, September 2019, Tribunal Superior de Justicia, Case No STSJ M 7038/2019 - ECLI: ES:TSJM:2019:7038

Spain vs ARW Enterprise Computin Solution SA, September 2019, Tribunal Superior de Justicia, Case No STSJ M 7038/2019 – ECLI: ES:TSJM:2019:7038

A Spanish subsidiary deducted management fees paid to two French group companies under intra-group service contracts. The Spanish tax authorities disallowed the deductions, finding the company had not sufficiently demonstrated that the fees were incurred to generate income or conferred a direct benefit on the subsidiary. The Tribunal Superior de Justicia upheld the tax authority's assessment in September 2019 ... Read more
Romania vs "Broker" A SRL, September 2016, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 3818/2019

Romania vs “Broker” A SRL, September 2016, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 3818/2019

A Romanian company challenged tax authority adjustments after an audit found deficiencies in its comparability study, covering royalties, support services, and strategic management fees. The tax authority replaced the study and disallowed carried-forward losses. Romania's Supreme Administrative Court ruled in favour of the tax authority in 2019, upholding the revised benchmark analysis and confirming the transfer pricing adjustments despite double taxation arguments raised by the taxpayer ... Read more
Tanzania vs Aggreko International Projects Ltd, June 2019, Court of Appeal, Case No 148 of 2018

Tanzania vs Aggreko International Projects Ltd, June 2019, Court of Appeal, Case No 148 of 2018

A Tanzanian branch of a UK power generation company paid management fees to its head office for services provided in FY 2011–2012. The Tanzania Revenue Authority assessed withholding tax on those payments. After the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal set aside the assessment, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision in 2019, confirming that fees for services rendered in Tanzania with a Tanzanian source are subject to withholding tax ... Read more
Indonesia vs ARPTe Ltd, January 2019, Tax Court, Case No. PUT-108755.15/2013/PP/M.XVIIIA

Indonesia vs ARPTe Ltd, January 2019, Tax Court, Case No. PUT-108755.15/2013/PP/M.XVIIIA

An Indonesian mining company made payments to its Singapore parent for management services and use of intangible assets. The tax authority disallowed the deductions, but the Indonesian Tax Court overturned the assessment in 2019, finding that ARPTe Ltd had provided sufficient evidence that the services and intangibles genuinely benefited the company, satisfying the benefit test ... Read more