Tag: Mining

Sector encompassing extraction of minerals, ores, and hydrocarbons, where transfer pricing disputes frequently arise over commodity pricing, intra-group equipment leasing, management fees, and financing arrangements. Comparability analysis is complicated by volatile spot prices and long-term offtake contracts.

Iceland vs Íslenska kalkþörungafélagið ehf., February 2026, Court of Appeal, Case No 213/2025

Iceland vs Íslenska kalkþörungafélagið ehf., February 2026, Court of Appeal, Case No 213/2025

Íslenska kalkþörungafélagið ehf. ("the Icelandic Limestone Algae Company") operated a calcified algae factory in Iceland, harvesting seaweed from the seabed, cleaning, drying and exporting it almost entirely to its Irish parent company, Marigot Ltd. Marigot Ltd. further processed the raw material in ... Read more
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
Australia vs Alcoa, April 2025, Administrative Review Tribunal, Case No [2025] ARTA 482

Australia vs Alcoa, April 2025, Administrative Review Tribunal, Case No [2025] ARTA 482

Alcoa of Australia sold smelter-grade alumina to an unrelated Bahraini buyer under long-term contracts. Australian tax authorities assessed AUD 213 million in additional tax, arguing Alcoa had undercharged by over USD 420 million across 1993–2009. The Administrative Review Tribunal set aside the assessment in 2025, finding that Alcoa's pricing was consistent with or above arm's length prices when commercial terms and context were properly considered under the CUP method ... Read more
Colombia vs Puerto Arturo S.A.S., April 2025, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. 25000-23-37-000-2021-00357-01 (28256)

Colombia vs Puerto Arturo S.A.S., April 2025, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. 25000-23-37-000-2021-00357-01 (28256)

A Colombian emerald producer used the CUP method to justify related-party sales prices, relying on independent appraiser valuations as comparables. The tax authority rejected this approach and applied TNMM using a cost-based profit level indicator, adjusting income to the benchmarking median. The Council of State upheld the assessment in April 2025, confirming that appraiser valuations do not constitute comparable uncontrolled prices under the CUP method ... Read more
Portugal vs "A Mining S.A.", October 2024, Supreme Administrative Court, Case 0120/12.9BEBJA 01224/16

Portugal vs “A Mining S.A.”, October 2024, Supreme Administrative Court, Case 0120/12.9BEBJA 01224/16

A Portuguese mining company sold a wash plant on December 31, 2008, to a party with which it had ceased to be associated eight days earlier. The tax authorities treated the sale as a controlled transaction and applied a CUP adjustment. Portugal's Supreme Administrative Court overturned the lower court's decision in 2024, ruling the transaction occurred between unrelated parties and annulling the assessment ... Read more
Peru vs Empresa Minera Los Quenuales S.A., April 2024, Supreme Court, CASACIÓN N° 31608-2022

Peru vs Empresa Minera Los Quenuales S.A., April 2024, Supreme Court, CASACIÓN N° 31608-2022

A Peruvian mining company used the transactional net margin method to price controlled sales of zinc concentrates to Glencore International AG. The tax authorities rejected this approach and applied the CUP method, issuing an additional income assessment. The Tax Court initially sided with the taxpayer, but Peru's Supreme Court overturned that decision in 2024, finding the authorities had properly analysed all relevant pricing components under the CUP method ... Read more
Peru vs "Capital Ltd", November 2022, Tax Court, Case No 08044-1-2022

Peru vs “Capital Ltd”, November 2022, Tax Court, Case No 08044-1-2022

A Peruvian mining company disputed whether disbursements from non-domiciled related entities were loans or capital contributions. The tax authority reclassified them as loans and applied withholding tax on presumed interest using a comparability analysis. The Tax Court annulled the assessment in 2022, finding the authority failed to account for key comparability factors including principal scale, debtor financial status, and risk rating, rendering the deemed interest calculation unsupported ... Read more
Ukrain vs PrJSC "Poltava GZK", June 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 440/1053/19

Ukrain vs PrJSC “Poltava GZK”, June 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 440/1053/19

A Ukrainian subsidiary of the Ferrexpo group, Poltava GZK, priced intra-group sales of iron ore pellets using Platts quotations under the CUP method. Tax authorities challenged the use of lower-grade price references for higher-quality pellets and disputed freight cost adjustments. After lower courts sided with the taxpayer, Ukraine's Supreme Administrative Court partially reversed those decisions in June 2022, ruling predominantly in favour of the tax authorities ... Read more
TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 22

TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 22

78. Company A owns a government licence for a mining activity and a government licence for the exploitation of a railway. The mining licence has a standalone market value of 20. The railway licence has a standalone market value of 10. Company A has no other net assets. 79. Birincil, an entity which is independent of Company A, acquires 100% of the equity interests in Company A for 100. Birincil’s purchase price allocation performed for accounting purposes with respect to the acquisition attributes 20 of the purchase price to the mining licence; 10 to the railway licence; and 70 to goodwill based on the synergies created between the mining and railway licences. 80. Immediately following the acquisition, Birincil causes Company A to transfer its mining and railway licences to Company S, a subsidiary of Birincil. 81. In conducting a transfer pricing analysis of the arm’s length price to be paid by Company S for the transaction with Company A, it ... Read more
Peru vs "Mining Corp", December 2021, Tax Court, Case No 11557-1-2021

Peru vs “Mining Corp”, December 2021, Tax Court, Case No 11557-1-2021

A Peruvian mining company deducted interest on a $200 million intra-group syndicated loan, partly used to prepay portions of the same loan. The tax authority challenged the deductions, arguing insufficient documentation to link financing to taxable income generation. Peru's Tax Court, in December 2021, found the matter insufficiently examined and remanded the case for reexamination by the tax administration ... Read more
Australia vs Glencore, May 2021, High Court, Case No [2021] HCATrans 098

Australia vs Glencore, May 2021, High Court, Case No [2021] HCATrans 098

Glencore Australia sold copper concentrate to its Swiss parent under a price-sharing agreement. The Australian Tax Office challenged the pricing as below arm's length. After rulings in Glencore's favour at Federal Court and Full Federal Court level, the tax authority sought special leave to appeal. Australia's High Court dismissed the application in May 2021, confirming the outcome in the taxpayer's favour ... Read more
Canada vs Cameco Corp., February 2021, Supreme Court, Case No 39368.

Canada vs Cameco Corp., February 2021, Supreme Court, Case No 39368.

Cameco, a major Canadian uranium producer, was assessed by the CRA for tax years 2003, 2005, and 2006 on the basis that transactions with its Swiss trading subsidiary constituted a sham profit-shifting arrangement. The Tax Court and Federal Court of Appeal both ruled in Cameco's favour. In February 2021, the Canadian Supreme Court dismissed the tax authority's application for leave to appeal, confirming the decisions in favour of the taxpayer ... 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
Australia vs Glencore, November 2020, Full Federal Court of Australia, Case No FCAFC 187

Australia vs Glencore, November 2020, Full Federal Court of Australia, Case No FCAFC 187

Glencore Australia sold copper concentrate to its Swiss parent under a price-sharing agreement. The Australian tax authority assessed additional income of over $240 million across 2007–2009, arguing prices were below arm's length. The Full Federal Court of Australia dismissed the ATO's appeal in November 2020, upholding the original Federal Court finding that prices paid were within an arm's length range ... Read more
Mexico vs Majestic Silver Corp, September 2020, Federal Administrative Court, Not published

Mexico vs Majestic Silver Corp, September 2020, Federal Administrative Court, Not published

A Mexican subsidiary of First Majestic Silver Corp held an APA permitting silver sales to a Barbados group entity at $4.04 per ounce, well below prevailing market prices exceeding $30 per ounce. The Mexican tax authority challenged the arrangement, and in September 2020 the Federal Administrative Court ruled in favour of the SAT, nullifying the APA as invalid. The mining group disputed the procedural fairness of the decision and reserved its legal options ... Read more
Tanzania vs African Barrick Gold PLC, August 2020, Court of Appeal, Case No. 144 of 2018, [2020] TZCA 1754

Tanzania vs African Barrick Gold PLC, August 2020, Court of Appeal, Case No. 144 of 2018, [2020] TZCA 1754

A UK-incorporated holding company operating Tanzania's largest gold mines disputed withholding tax assessments of over USD 41 million on dividends and service payments made between 2010 and 2013. The tax authority argued the company was a Tanzanian tax resident conducting business locally. Tanzania's Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in 2020, upholding the assessments and affirming the company's resident status and liability for withholding taxes ... 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
Tanzania vs JSC ATOMREDMETZOLOTO (ARMZ), June 2020, Court of Appeal, Appeals No 78-79-2018

Tanzania vs JSC ATOMREDMETZOLOTO (ARMZ), June 2020, Court of Appeal, Appeals No 78-79-2018

A Russian uranium company acquired shares in an Australian firm owning the Mkuju River Uranium project in Tanzania, then transferred those shares to a Canadian entity via a put/call option agreement. The Tanzanian tax authority assessed capital gains tax on the underlying Tanzanian mining interest. The Court of Appeal ruled mostly in favour of the tax authority, affirming that the indirect transfer triggered Tanzanian capital gains tax liability ... Read more
Canada vs Cameco Corp., June 2020, Federal Court of Appeal, Case No 2020 FCA 112.

Canada vs Cameco Corp., June 2020, Federal Court of Appeal, Case No 2020 FCA 112.

Cameco, a major Canadian uranium producer, routed purchases of Russian uranium through its Luxembourg subsidiary under long-term contracts. The Canada Revenue Agency challenged the arrangements as shams and sought recharacterisation of profits. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the Tax Court's decision in favour of Cameco in 2020, confirming the transactions were genuine and priced on arm's length terms ... Read more
Zambia vs Mopani Copper Mines Plc., May 2020, Supreme Court of Zambia, Case No 2017/24

Zambia vs Mopani Copper Mines Plc., May 2020, Supreme Court of Zambia, Case No 2017/24

Mopani Copper Mines Plc. sold copper to related party Glencore International AG at prices significantly below those charged to third parties. The Zambian Revenue Authority issued a transfer pricing assessment concluding prices were not arm's length and tax had been reduced. After the Tax Appeal Tribunal ruled for the ZRA, Mopani appealed to Zambia's Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal and upheld the assessment in favour of the tax authority in 2020 ... Read more

Mining Group Rio Tinto in new $86 million Dispute with ATO over pricing of Aluminium

In March 2020 the Australian Taxation Office issued an tax assessment regarding transfer pricing to Rio Tinto’s aluminium division according to which additional taxes in an amount of $86.1 million must be paid for fiscal years 2010 – 2016. According to the assessment Rio’s Australian subsidiaries did not charge an arm’s length price for the aluminium they sold to Rio’s Singapore marketing hub. This new aluminum case is separate to Rio’s long-running $447 million dispute with the ATO over the transfer pricing of Australian iron ore. Rio intents to object to the ATO’s aluminium claim and states that the pricing of iron ore and aluminium has been determined in accordance with the OECD guidelines and Australian and Singapore domestic tax laws ... 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
Australia vs Glencore, September 2019, Federal Court of Australia, Case No FCA 1432

Australia vs Glencore, September 2019, Federal Court of Australia, Case No FCA 1432

Glencore Australia sold copper concentrate to its Swiss parent, Glencore International AG, under a price-sharing agreement. The Australian Tax Office assessed additional income of over $240 million across 2007–2009, arguing prices were below arm's length. The Federal Court of Australia ruled in favour of Glencore in September 2019, finding the prices paid fell within an arm's length range and setting aside the amended assessments ... Read more
The Australian Taxation Office and Mining Giant BHP have settled yet another Transfer Pricing Dispute

The Australian Taxation Office and Mining Giant BHP have settled yet another Transfer Pricing Dispute

BHP Group has agreed to pay the state of Western Australia A$250 million to end a dispute over royalties paid on iron ore shipments sold through its Singapore marketing hub. The State government found in January that the world’s biggest miner had underpaid royalties on iron ore shipments sold via Singapore stretching back over more than a decade. BHP reached a deal to pay A$529 million in additional taxes to the Australian government late last year to settle a long-running tax dispute over the miner’s Singapore hub on its income from 2003-2018 ... Read more
Peru vs Empresa Minera Los Quenuales S.A., June 2019, Tax Court, Case No 05826-1-2019

Peru vs Empresa Minera Los Quenuales S.A., June 2019, Tax Court, Case No 05826-1-2019

A Peruvian mining company used the transactional net margin method to price controlled sales of zinc concentrates to related party Glencore International AG. The tax authorities rejected this approach and applied a CUP method, issuing an additional tax assessment. Peru's Tax Court ruled mostly in favour of the taxpayer in June 2019, finding that the authorities had failed to account for critical comparability factors including ore grade, humidity, and recovery factor ... Read more
Glencore in $680 million Transfer Pricing Dispute with HMRC

Glencore in $680 million Transfer Pricing Dispute with HMRC

In a publication of preliminary results for 2018 mining giant Glencore reports a major tax assessment issued by HMRC in December 2018. “UK Tax Audit In December 2018, HMRC issued formal transfer pricing, permanent establishment and diverted profits tax assessments for the 2008 – 2017 tax years, amounting to $680 million. The Group intends to appeal and vigorously contest these assessments, following, over the years, various legal opinions received and detailed analysis conducted, supporting its positions and policies applied, and therefore the Group has not provided for the amount assessed. Management does not anticipate a significant risk of material changes in estimates in this matter in the next financial year.“ ... Read more
Australia vs BHP Billiton, January 2019, Federal Court of Australia,  Case No [2019] FCAFC 4

Australia vs BHP Billiton, January 2019, Federal Court of Australia, Case No [2019] FCAFC 4

BHP Billiton had excluded income earned by its British group companies from sales of Australian mining goods through a Singapore marketing hub from its Australian CFC income. The Australian Tax Office argued the British entities qualified as associates under Australian CFC legislation. After BHP won at first instance in 2017, the Federal Court of Australia reversed the decision in January 2019, ruling both arms of the dual-listed structure were associates and subject to Australian CFC 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
Wheaton Precious Metals Reaches Settlement on Canadian Tax Dispute Regarding Foreign Income

Wheaton Precious Metals Reaches Settlement on Canadian Tax Dispute Regarding Foreign Income

Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. has reached a settlement with the Canada Revenue Agency which provides for a final resolution of Wheaton’s tax appeal in connection with the reassessment under transfer pricing rules of the 2005 to 2010 taxation years related to income generated by the Company’s wholly-owned foreign subsidiaries, Wheaton International, outside of Canada. Wheaton is the leading company in the precious metals streaming business, essentially providing up-front financing to mining companies looking to build mines. In return, it earns the right to buy silver and gold output from those mines at a heavily discounted price, which it sells on for a profit. When Wheaton earns money from mines outside Canada, income is reported through foreign subsidiaries and Wheaton does not pay tax on it in Canada. The CRA essentially thinks this is tax avoidance, and earnings should be taxed according to transfer pricing rules in Canada’s Income Tax Act. After the CRA went through Silver Wheaton’s records from 2005 ... Read more
Russia vs LLC "Bulatovskiy Basalt", November 2018, Court of Appeal, Case No. A05-5548/2018

Russia vs LLC “Bulatovskiy Basalt”, November 2018, Court of Appeal, Case No. A05-5548/2018

A Russian basalt producer sold rubble to related intermediaries who resold it at roughly double the price. Tax authorities argued the structure existed solely to reduce taxable profits and assessed income based on final resale prices. The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance ruling in favour of the taxpayer, finding the intermediaries performed genuine functions and that the tax authority had wrongly applied the resale price method instead of the priority comparable uncontrolled price method ... Read more
The Australian Taxation Office and Mining Giant BHP have settled an ongoing Transfer Pricing Dispute

The Australian Taxation Office and Mining Giant BHP have settled an ongoing Transfer Pricing Dispute

The Australian Taxation Office has agreed on a settlement with BHP Mining Group to resolve a transfer pricing dispute relating to transfer pricing treatment of commodities sold to a Singapore marketing hub. BHP had originally been assessed with over AUD 1 billion in additional taxes. According to the settlement BHP will pay additional tax of AUD 529 million to resolve the dispute, covering the years 2003–18. According to the settlement BHP Group will also increase its ownership of BHP Billiton Marketing AG, the company conducting BHP’s Singapore marketing business, from 58 percent to 100 percent. The change in ownership will result in all profits made in Singapore in relation to the Australian assets owned by BHP Group being fully subject to Australian tax. BHP’s Singapore marketing arrangements will continue to be located in Singapore and will also be within the ‘low risk’ segment for offshore marketing hubs ... Read more
Transfer Pricing in the Mining Industry

Transfer Pricing in the Mining Industry

Like other sectors of the economy, there are base erosion and profit shifting risks in the mining sector. Based on the ongoing work on BEPS, the IGF (Intergovernmental Forum on Mining) and OECD has released guidance for source countries on transfer pricing in the mining sector. The transfer pricing and tax avoidance issues identified in the sector are: 1. Excessive Interest Deductions Companies may use related-party debt to shift profit offshore via excessive interest payments to related entities. “Debt shifting” is not unique to mining, but it is particularly significant for mining projects that require high levels of capital investment not directly obtainable from third parties, making substantial related-party borrowing a frequent practice. 2. Abusive Transfer Pricing Transfer pricing occurs when one company sells a good or service to another related company. Because these transactions are internal, they are not subject to market pricing and can be used by multinationals to shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions. Related-party transactions in mining ... Read more
Africa - Mining and Transfer Pricing

Africa – Mining and Transfer Pricing

Most Sub Saharan African jurisdictions see the area of mineral transfers/sales as the main transfer pricing risk, but only few have systems in place to check if prices applied to minerals transferred to related parties comply with the arm’s length principle. Studies highlights a strong need for capacity strengthening in the area of transfer pricing throughout the African continent and for enhancing the knowledge of mining industry within tax authorities. South Africa has, for many years, been the leader in transfer pricing audits among the African countries. But emerging countries such as Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, are now making a concerted effort to develop transfer pricing capability. In Tanzania, for example, the Acasia Mining Plc. was recently  issued a USD 190 billion tax bill. The assessment demonstrates a strong political will in Africa to address transfer pricing non-compliance. A paper commissioned by the World Bank highlights transfer pricing issues within the African Mining industry. Not surprisingly, it seems that most of the transfer pricing problems relates ... Read more

Canada vs Cameco, November 2017, Pending case – C$2.2bn in taxes

Several mining companies are beeing audited by the Canadian Revenue Agency for aggressive tax planning and tax evasion schemes. Among the high-profile companies that have filed pleadings with the Canadian Tax Court are Cameco, Silver Wheaton, Burlington Resources, Conoco Funding Company and Suncor Energy. The CRA says, the companies inappropriately ran international transactions through subsidiary companies in low-tax foreign jurisdictions. In the Cameco case the Revenue Agency has audited years 2003 to 2015 and challenged Cameco Canada’s arrangements with a Swiss subsidiary. Cameco sells uranium to its marketing subsidiary in Switzerland, which re-sells it to buyers, incurring less tax than the company would through its Canadian office. The CRA position is that Cameco Canada was in fact carrying the uranium business – not Swiss Cameco subsidiary. The total tax bill for the 13 years: $2.1-billion, plus interest and penalties. Three tax years are currently being tried in the tax court, where a final decision is expected in late 2018 or ... Read more

South Africa vs. Kumba Iron Ore, 2017, Settlement 2.5bn

A transfer pricing dispute between South African Revenue Service and Sishen Iron Ore, a subsidiary of Kumba Iron Ore, has now been resolved in a settlement of ZAR 2.5bn. The case concerned disallowance of sales commissions paid to offshore sales and marketing subsidiaries in Amsterdam, Luxembourg and Hong Kong. Since 2012, Kumba Iron Ore’s international marketing has been integrated with the larger Anglo American group’s Singapore-based marketing hub. The settlement follows a similar investigations into the transfer pricing activities of Evraz Highveld Steel, which resulted in a R685 million tax claim against the now-bankrupt company related to apparent tax evasion using an Austrian shell company between 2007 and 2009 ... Read more

US vs. Cameco, July 2017, Settlement of $122th.

Canadian mining company, Cameco Corp, has settled a tax dispute and will pay the IRS $122,000 for income years 2009-2012. Cameco’s dispute with tax authorities relates to its offshore marketing structure and transfer pricing. Cameco sells uranium to its marketing subsidiary in Switzerland, which re-sells it to buyers, incurring less tax than the company would through its Canadian office. Cameco says it has a marketing subsidiary in Switzerland because most customers are located outside Canada ... Read more

Accessing Comparables Data – A Toolkit on Comparability and Mineral pricing

The Platform for Collaboration on Tax (IMF, OECD, UN and the WBG) has published a toolkit for addressing difficulties in accessing comparables Data for Transfer Pricing Analyses. The Toolkit Includes a supplementary report on addressing the information gaps on prices of Minerals Sold in an intermediate form ... Read more

Australia vs Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton, April 2017 – Going to Court

Singapore marketing hubs are being used by large multinational companies — and billions of dollars in related-party transactions that are being funnelled through the hubs each year. The Australian Tax Office has issued claims of substantial unpaid taxes to mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton. BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto have revealed through the Senate inquiry they have been issued amended assessments for tax, interest and penalties of $522 million and $107 million respectively. These claims will be challenged in court. The cases centres on the use of commodity trading/marketing hubs established in Singapore colloquially known as the Singapore Sling. The Australian taxation commissioner alleges Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton is using subsidiaries in Singapore to reduce the taxes in Australia. It has been revealed that from 2006 to 2014, BHP Billiton sold $US210 billion worth of resources to its Singapore subsidiary. That was then on-sold to customers for $US235 billion — a $US25 billion mark-up over eight years ... Read more
UN Guidance Note on Extractives (Oil, Gas, Minerals)

UN Guidance Note on Extractives (Oil, Gas, Minerals)

The UN Transfer Pricing Manual does not address industry-specific issues, but, in 2017 a guidance note was developed by a subcommittee looking into transfer pricing issues in extractive industries, both relating to the production of oil and natural gas and relating to mining and minerals extraction. The note draws on materials that have been published in other fora, including the Platform for Cooperation on Tax (hereafter: “the Platform”), reflecting enhanced collaboration between the IMF, OECD, UN and WBG for the benefit of developing countries. Reference can be made to the Discussion Draft published by the Platform on Addressing the Information Gaps on Prices of Minerals Sold in an Intermediate Form and the Discussion Draft presenting A Toolkit for addressing Difficulties in Accessing Comparable data for Transfer Pricing Analyses. Reference can also be made to the WBG’s Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and materials3 and the publication Transfer Pricing in Mining with a Focus on Africa. Table 1 in the first part ... Read more
Tanzania vs. AFRICAN BARRICK GOLD PLC, March 2016, Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal, Case No. 16 OF 2015

Tanzania vs. AFRICAN BARRICK GOLD PLC, March 2016, Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal, Case No. 16 OF 2015

African Barrick Gold, Tanzania's largest mining company, was assessed for unpaid taxes, interest, and penalties over alleged under-declared export revenues from the Bulyanhulu and Buzwagi mines. The tax authority argued dividend payments were a scheme designed to evade tax. The Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal upheld the authority's position in 2016, finding the taxpayer's explanation of dividend sources implausible and concluding the transactions constituted tax evasion ... Read more
Tanzania vs Bulyanhulu Gold Mine Limited, March 2016, Court of Appeal, Case No. [2016] TZCA 571, (Consolidated Civil Appeal 89 of 2015)

Tanzania vs Bulyanhulu Gold Mine Limited, March 2016, Court of Appeal, Case No. [2016] TZCA 571, (Consolidated Civil Appeal 89 of 2015)

Bulyanhulu Gold Mine Limited challenged the Tanzanian tax authority's disallowance of multiple expense categories following an audit covering 2000 to 2006, including aircraft costs, political risk insurance premiums, foreign exchange losses, community development expenditure, and environmental rehabilitation provisions. The Tax Appeals Board and Tribunal ruled against the company, and Tanzania's Court of Appeal largely upheld those decisions in favour of the tax authority in 2016 ... Read more
Albania vs "Albanian Chrome" shpk, February 2013, High Court, Case No. 00-2013-465

Albania vs “Albanian Chrome” shpk, February 2013, High Court, Case No. 00-2013-465

Albanian Chrome shpk successfully challenged a transfer pricing assessment on chrome ore transactions after the tax authority issued its assessment without referring the matter to the Transfer Pricing Commission in the General Directorate of Taxes, as required by Albanian law. The Albania High Court set aside the assessment in 2013, ruling that any correction of transfer pricing in international transactions must follow the mandatory commission approval procedure under Articles 36 and 37 of Law no. 8438/1998 ... Read more
Peru vs "Copper Corporation S.A.", July 2011, Tax Court, Case No 12609-8-2011

Peru vs “Copper Corporation S.A.”, July 2011, Tax Court, Case No 12609-8-2011

A Peruvian copper mining company deducted intra-group service payments from its taxable income, but the tax authority disallowed the deductions after finding the supporting documentation insufficient to prove the services were actually rendered. The company appealed to the Tax Court, which dismissed the appeal and upheld the assessment in favour of the tax authority in July 2011 ... Read more