Tag: Manufacturing

§ 1.482-5(e) Example 4.

Transfer of intangible to offshore manufacturer. (i) DevCo is a U.S. developer, producer and marketer of widgets. DevCo develops a new “high tech widget” (htw) that is manufactured by its foreign subsidiary ManuCo located in Country H. ManuCo sells the htw to MarkCo (a U.S. subsidiary of DevCo) for distribution and marketing in the United States. The taxable year 1996 is under audit, and the district director examines whether the royalty rate of 5 percent paid by ManuCo to DevCo is an arm’s length consideration for the htw technology. (ii) Based on all the facts and circumstances, the district director determines that the comparable profits method will provide the most reliable measure of an arm’s length result. ManuCo is selected as the tested party because it engages in relatively routine manufacturing activities, while DevCo engages in a variety of complex activities using unique and valuable intangibles. Finally, because ManuCo engages in manufacturing activities, it is determined that the ratio of ... Read more

§ 1.482-1T(i)(E)Example 9.

Aggregation of interrelated manufacturing and marketing intangibles governed by different statutes and regulations. The facts are the same as in Example 8 except that P transfers only the ROW intangibles related to manufacturing to S1 in an exchange described in section 351 and, upon entering into the CSA, then transfers the ROW intangibles related to marketing to S1 in a platform contribution transaction described in § 1.482-7(c) (rather than transferring all ROW intangibles only upon entering into the CSA or only in a prior exchange described in section 351). The value of the ROW intangibles that P transferred in the two transactions is greater in the aggregate, due to synergies among the different types of ROW intangibles, than if valued as two separate transactions. Under paragraph (f)(2)(i)(B) of this section, the arm’s length standard requires these synergies to be taken into account in determining the arm’s length results for the transactions ... Read more
Costa Rica vs GlaxoSmithKline Costa Rica S.A., February 2022, Supreme Court, Case No 4-001638-1027-CA

Costa Rica vs GlaxoSmithKline Costa Rica S.A., February 2022, Supreme Court, Case No 4-001638-1027-CA

GlaxoSmithKline Costa Rica S.A. manufactures pharma products which is sold to both independent customers in the region and to group companies abroad. For FY 2004 and 2005 pricing of the controlled transactions had been determined based on the TNMM method using return on total costs (ROTC) as PLI. GSK said the range of return on total costs “for the comparable independent companies ranges from 4.7 per cent to 14.5 per cent, with a median of 9.6 per cent. GSK CR obtained an average ROTC of 50.6 percent during fiscal years 2004 and 2005, which was not below the range identified for comparable independent companies. Accordingly, the transfer prices used by GSK CR in its controlled transactions did not distort GSK CR’s profitability and satisfied the arm’s length principle set out in the OECD Guidelines. In 2009 the tax authorities issued an assessment for FY 2004 and 2005 based on the internal CUP method. “…between the transactions under study, namely sales ... Read more
Denmark vs Tetra Pak Processing Systems A/S, April 2021, Supreme Court, Case No BS-19502/2020-HJR

Denmark vs Tetra Pak Processing Systems A/S, April 2021, Supreme Court, Case No BS-19502/2020-HJR

The Danish tax authorities had issued a discretionary assessment of the taxable income of Tetra Pak Processing Systems A/S due to inadequate transfer pricing documentation and continuous losses. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court found that the TP documentation provided by the company did not comply to the required standards. The TP documentation did state how prices between Tetra Pak and the sales companies had been determined and did not contain a comparability analysis, as required under the current § 3 B, para. 5 of the Tax Control Act and section 6 of the Danish administrative ordinance regarding transfer pricing documentation. Against this background, the Supreme Court found that the TP documentation was deficient to such an extent that it had to be equated with missing documentation. The Supreme Court agreed that Tetra Pak’s taxable income for FY 2005-2009 could be determined on a discretionary basis. According to the Supreme Court Tetra Pak had not proved that the ... Read more
Denmark vs Icemachine Manufacturer A/S, June 2020, National Court, Case No SKM2020.224.VLR

Denmark vs Icemachine Manufacturer A/S, June 2020, National Court, Case No SKM2020.224.VLR

At issue was the question of whether the Danish tax authorities had been entitled to make a discretionary assessment of the taxable income of Icemachine Manufacturer A/S due to inadequate transfer pricing documentation and continuous losses. And if such a discretionary assessment was justified, the question of whether the company had lifted the burden of proof that the tax authorities’ estimates had been clearly unreasonable. The Court ruled that the transfer pricing documentation provided by the company was so inadequate that it did not provide the tax authorities with a sufficient basis for determining whether the arm’s length principle had been followed. The tax authorities had therefore been entitled to make a discretionary assessment of the taxable income. For that purpose the Court found that the tax authorities had been justified in using the TNM method with the Danish company as the tested party, since sufficiently reliable information on the sales companies in the group had not been provided. (In April 2021 ... Read more
India vs Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited, March 2020, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - BANGALORE, Case No IT(TP) No.1915/Bang/2017 & 3377/Bang/2018

India vs Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited, March 2020, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – BANGALORE, Case No IT(TP) No.1915/Bang/2017 & 3377/Bang/2018

Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited manufactures auto parts and sold them to Toyota Kirloskar Motors Limited, another Indian corporation in the Toyota Group. In FY 2013-14 Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited paid a 5% royalty to the Japanese parent Toyota Motor Corporation for use of know-how. The royalty rate had been determined by application of the TNMM method. The Indian tax authorities did not agree with the choice of method and argued that the most appropriate method was the Profit Split Method (PSM). Judgement of the Tax Appellate Tribunal The Tribunal decided in favor of Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts and set aside the assessment. Excerpt “17. It is clear from the above OECD guidelines that in ‘order to determine the profits to be split, the crux is to understand the functional profile of the entities under consideration. Although the comparability analysis is at the “heart of the application of the arm’s length principle”, likewise, a functional analysis has always ... Read more
Poland vs "Cans Corp", September 2019, Provincial Administrative Court i Szczecin, Case no SA/Sz155/19

Poland vs “Cans Corp”, September 2019, Provincial Administrative Court i Szczecin, Case no SA/Sz155/19

At issue in this case was the remuneration of a Polish manufacturing subsidiary in an international group dealing in the production and sale of metal packaging for food products, including beverage cans, food cans, household cans and metal closures. The tax authorities had issued an tax assessment for FY 2009 – 2012 based on a benchmark study. Decision of the Administrative Court The Court upheld the decision of the tax authorities concerning income for the tax year from 01/01/2012 to 31/12/2012. In 2012, the Polish manufacturing site operated by producing lids for jars. In the course of the audit proceedings against the Party regarding corporate income tax for 2012, the first instance authority determined – based on a comparative analysis of the financial results of similar independent manufactures operating in the packaging industry on the market in Central and Eastern Europe, that this market showed an upward trend and in none of the years 2009-2012 this industry recorded a downward ... Read more
Poland vs Non-Woven z o.o., July 2019, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 3433/18

Poland vs Non-Woven z o.o., July 2019, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 3433/18

The question in this case was whether or not year-end-adjustments/profit adjustments should be considered part of the market price for acquisition of raw materials used in the production of non-wovens products in the Polish company operating partially under a tax exempt zone. The Court of First Instance had come to the conclusion, that the payment of year end adjustments were part of the price for acquisition of raw materials and thus not tax deductible as related to tax exempt activities. This decision was appealed by the company. The Supreme Administrative Court considered the following : The appeal should be upheld. It should be noted that one of the assumptions of transfer prices is respect for the so-called market price rules. It consists in the fact that when transactions are concluded by related entities , the agreed conditions should be consistent with the conditions applied in comparable transactions by independent entities. The means of implementing this principle are the so-called profitability ... Read more
Taiwan vs Intracom, November 2018, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 691 of 107

Taiwan vs Intracom, November 2018, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 691 of 107

Intracom Taiwan had deducted losses on intra-group receivables and management fees in its taxable income. These deductions had been partially denied by the Taiwanese tax administration due to lack of documentation and economic substance. Intracom brought the case to court. The Supreme Administrative court dismissed Intracom’s appeal and upheld the assessment. On the issue of deduction for bad debt the court states: “The Appellee’s request for such documents was in accordance with the law. However, the Appellant was unable to produce documents that met the statutory requirements, and from this point of view, the Appellee’s refusal to allow the recognition of the doubtful accounts could not be considered an error. (3) The appellant’s argument that the tax authorities should accept the recognition of doubtful debts as long as the appellant obtains the documentary evidence of the “foreign office certification” which proves the objective fact that “the debtor of the receivable has gone into liquidation” is clearly inconsistent with Article 94 ... Read more
Italy vs "VAT Group X", November 2018, Tax Ruling of the Italian Revenue Agency, Case No 60

Italy vs “VAT Group X”, November 2018, Tax Ruling of the Italian Revenue Agency, Case No 60

A ruling was issued by the Italian Revenue Service on the following question on the VAT treatment of Transfer Pricing adjustments. “Alfa represents that it is part of a multinational Group (hereinafter, the “Group”). The Group is implementing a new integrated development plan, aimed at the joint creation of products and platforms necessary for the production and marketing of goods under brand X. The legal and economic ownership of the X trademark and of the relevant know-how belongs to the non-EU company Beta, which acts as “Principal” and assumes all risks connected to the production and marketing of the goods, granting the trademark and the know-how free of charge to the subsidiaries engaged in the production and marketing of the X goods. The plaintiff entered into an intra-group agreement (the ‘Agreement’) with Beta, whereby Beta undertakes to act as contract assembler for the purpose of manufacturing X products, putting its own equipment at the disposal of Gamma (a company incorporated ... Read more
Indonesia vs Sharp Semiconductor Indonesia, December 2013, Tax Court, Put.49339/2013

Indonesia vs Sharp Semiconductor Indonesia, December 2013, Tax Court, Put.49339/2013

In the case of Sharp Semiconductor Indonesia the tax authorities had disallowed deductions for royalties paid by the local company to the Japanese Sharp Corporation. Judgement of the Tax Court The court decided predominantly in favour of the tax authorities. According to the court Sharp Semiconductor Indonesia had not been able to prove the existence of know-how, the existence of training provided, the value of intangible property owned by Sharp Corporation. Moreover, Sharp Semiconductor Indonesia only sells its product to related parties and royalty fees are first relevant once the product is sold to independent parties. Finally Sharp Semiconductor Indonesia was not able to prove the economic benefit it had received from the trademark “Sharp”. Click here for translation putusan_put.49339_pp_m.xii_15_2013_20210530 ... Read more
Indonesia vs Panasonic Indonesia, May 2013, Tax Court, Put.45162/2013

Indonesia vs Panasonic Indonesia, May 2013, Tax Court, Put.45162/2013

In the case of Panasonic Indonesia the tax authorities had disallowed deductions for services and royalties paid for by the local company to the Panasonic Corporation Japan. The tax authorities held that Panasonic Indonesia did not received the purported services and that the company should not pay royalty due to its status as a contracting manufacturer. Judgement of the Tax Court The Court decided predominantly in favour of the tax authorities. The court found that Panasonic Indonesia had been unable to prove that actual ‘services’ had been received for an amount equal to 3% of net sales of all product manufactured and 1% of net sales for technical assistance and brand fees. Furthermore it was notet that Panasonic Indonesia reported consistent losses. Click here for translation putusan_put.45162_pp_m.xv_15_2013_20210530 ... Read more
India vs. Fulford (India) Limited, July 2011, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

India vs. Fulford (India) Limited, July 2011, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Fulford India Ltd. imported active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) from related group companies and sold them in India. The TNM method was used for determening transfer prices. The tax administration found the CUP method to be the most appropriate. Fulford India argued that the CUP method requires stringent comparability and any differences which could materially affect the price in the open market should be taken into consideration. In the pharmaceutical world, APIs whith similar properties may still be different in relation to quality, efficiancy, impurities etc. Therefore, the two products cannot be compared. In court, it was further explained that Fulford also performed secondary manufacturing functions, converting the APIs into formulations. Hence, Fulford could be descriped as a value added distributor. The Court concluded that the selection of the best method should be based on functional analysis and the characterisation of the transactions and the entities. The fact that Fulford had secondary manufacturing activities had not previously been explained to the ... Read more
Latvia vs "Snickers Production Latvia", April 2011, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No A42435608 SKA-134/2011

Latvia vs “Snickers Production Latvia”, April 2011, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No A42435608 SKA-134/2011

This case concerns a transfer pricing dispute between the Latvian tax authorities (SRS) and a Latvian manufacturing company, “Snickers Production Latvia”, related to a credit notes issued to Snickers Europe AB, reducing its taxable profits. For the purpose of establishing the pricing of controlled transactions the company had used the TNMM method and performed a benchmark analysis based on a 2004 version of AMADEUS. To verify the benchmark analysis the tax authorities had used a 2007 version of AMADEUS and concluded that many of the selected comparables did not meet the qualitative criteria. The benchmark was adjusted and an assessment issued were the reduction of profits resulting from the credit note was denied. An appeal was filed by the company with the Court. The appeal was dismissed by judgment of the Administrative District Court of 30 September 2009 and later by judgment of the Administrative Regional Court of 8 September 2010. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Supreme Court ... Read more
India vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

India vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

Maruti Suzuki India manufactures and sells cars and spare parts. A license agreement had been entered with the group parent for use of licensed information and trademark for the manufacture and sale of the products. Hence, Maruti Suzuki paid royalties to the parent for trademark and technology. The tax administration made an adjustment where the royalty paid for use of the trademark was disallowed and where a reimbursement with mark-up for non-routine advertising, marketing and promotion of the brand name was imputed. The High Court, referred the case back to the tax administration with observations. If there is an agreement between the group parent and the taxpayer which carries an obligation on the taxpayer to use the trademark owned by the group parent. Such agreement should be accompanied either by an appropriate payment by the group parent or by a discount provided to the taxpayer. Appropriate payment should be made on account of benefit derived by the group parent in the form of marketing intangibles obtained from such mandatory ... Read more
US vs Perkin-Elmer Corp. & Subs., September 1993, United States Tax Court, Case No. T.C. Memo. 1993-414

US vs Perkin-Elmer Corp. & Subs., September 1993, United States Tax Court, Case No. T.C. Memo. 1993-414

During the years in issue, 1975 through 1981, the worldwide operations of Perkin-Elmer (P-E) and its subsidiaries were organized into five operating groups, each of which was responsible for the research, manufacturing, sales, and servicing of its products. The five product areas were analytical instruments, optical systems, computer systems, flame spray equipment and materials, and military avionics. P-E and PECC entered into a General Licensing Agreement dated as of October 1, 1970, by the terms of which P-E granted PECC an exclusive right to manufacture in Puerto Rico and a nonexclusive right to use and sell worldwide the instruments and accessories to be identified in specific licenses. P-E also agreed to furnish PECC with all design and manufacturing information, including any then still to be developed, associated with any licensed products. PECC agreed to pay royalties on the products based upon the “Net Sales Price”, defined as “the net amount billed and payable for *** [licensed products] excluding import duties, ... Read more
France vs. Caterpillar, October 1989, CE No 65009

France vs. Caterpillar, October 1989, CE No 65009

In Caterpillar, a 5% royalty was found to be an arm’s-length rate for the manufacturing and assembling operations. The court did not accept that there should be different rates for the two different activities. Excerpt from the Judgement “…According to the administration, the rate of the royalty paid by the company “Caterpillar France” is admissible only when it applies to the selling price of equipment entirely manufactured by the company, but not when it affects the gross margin made on equipment that the company has only assembled, since the assembly operations make less use of the technology and know-how acquired by the American company than the machining operations themselves; that, however, the details provided and the documents produced in this respect by the company do not make it possible to make such a distinction between the operations that successively contribute to the production of the finished products; that the uniform rate of the fee cannot, in the circumstances of the ... Read more