Tag: Procurement activities

The Netherlands releases New 2022 Decree on application of the Arm's Length Principle

The Netherlands releases New 2022 Decree on application of the Arm’s Length Principle

On 1 July 2022, the tax authorities in the Netherlands published Decree No. 2022-0000139020 of 14 June 2022 containing local guidance on application of the arm’s length principle. The Decree is based on article 9 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and also contains references to local case laws. In the Decree, particular focus is on areas that have been updated in the most recent releases of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines – Legal ownership, DEMPE functions, Services, HTVI and Valuation Methods, Government policies (COVID-19), Remuneration of Procurement activities, Financial transactions etc. Click here for Unofficial English translation Click here for other translation NL TP decree stcrt-2022-16685 ... Read more
Marketing and Procurement Hubs - Tax Avoidance

Marketing and Procurement Hubs – Tax Avoidance

The Australian Taxation Office has issued new guidance for multinational groups using offshore marketing- and procurment hubs for tax avoidance purposes. The guidance adresses tax schemes where MNEs uses offshore hubs to shift profits and thereby avoid Australian taxes. Offshore hub arrangements are catagorised by the ATO as white, green, blue, yellow, amber, or red – based on the risk assesment for tax purposes of the transfer pricing setup. The new guidance is a result of recent Australian investigations and hearings into tax avoidance schemes used by Multinational Groups. Tax avoidance in Australia Australian Senate Hearings into Tax Avoidance The overall framework for Australian risk assessment for tax purposes of MNE’s offshore marketing- and procurement hubs is shown below: ... Read more

South Africa vs. Sasol, Oct. 2017, $878 million tax case

A tax dispute over a potential 11.6 billion rand ($878 million) charge between South Africa -based international chemicals and energy company Sasol and the Revenue Service will play out in South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal within the next 12 months. June 30. 2017 a R1.2-billion tax liability was approved by the Tax Court in a case against Sasol by SARS relating to the company’s international crude oil procurement activities between 2005 and 2012. The Tax Court further reported that the final tax amount along with other tax principles raised by SARS in relation to Sasol Oil’s crude purchases in 2013 and 2014, would result in a further tax exposure of R11.6-billion, thus uplifting the total tax liability to R12.8-billion. Aug. 14. 2017 the supreme court granted Sasol’s application for leave to appeal the tax court ruling. Sasol’s dispute with the tax authority comes after Kumba Iron Ore, Anglo American’s iron ore producer, announced it had settled a tax dispute ... Read more
Japan vs "TH Corp", January 2017, District Court, Case No. 56 of 2014 (Gyoseu)

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

A tax assessment based on Japanese CFC rules (anti-tax haven rules) had been applied to a “TH Corp”‘s, subsidiary in Singapore. According to Japanese CFC rules, income arising from a foreign subsidiary located in a state or territory with significantly lower tax rates is deemed to arise as the income of the parent company when the principal business of the subsidiary is holding shares or IP rights. However, the CFC rules do not apply when the subsidiary has substance and it makes economic sense to conduct business in the subsidiary in the low tax jurisdiction. Judgement of the court. According to the court, total revenue, number of employees, and fixed facilities are relevant in this determination. The Court held that the Singapore subsidiary had conducted a broad range of businesses – including finance and logistics – with the economically rational purpose of streamlining its ASEAN operations, and thus set aside the CFC taxation. Excerpt “Satisfaction of the substance and control criteria (a) According to the above-mentioned findings, A1 rents an office in Singapore and uses it for the regional ... Read more
India vs. Gap International Sourcing Pvt. Ltd., May 2016, ITA No.1077/Del./2016

India vs. Gap International Sourcing Pvt. Ltd., May 2016, ITA No.1077/Del./2016

Gap International Sourcing was engaged in sourcing products from India to other group companies. The activity comprised of assistance in identification of vendors, provision of assistance to vendors in procurement of apparel, inspection and quality control and coordination with vendors to ensure delivery of goods to group companies. The necessary technical and intellectual basis for provision of these services were provided by the group companies. The Indian company used TNMM to benchmark the service fee at full cost plus 15%. The tax administration disregarded the functional profile and characterisation of Gap International Sourcing by assuming that the functional profile was substantially higher than those of limited risk support service providers. The tax administration found that a cost plus form of remuneration did not take into account substantial intangible assets owned by the taxpayer. Intangibles were identified to be human asset intangibles, supply chain intangibles and location savings. Based on above, the tax administration set the arm’s length remuneration at a ... Read more
Netherland vs. X BV, March 2007, District Court of Arnhem, Case No ECLI:NL:RBARN:2007:BA0339

Netherland vs. X BV, March 2007, District Court of Arnhem, Case No ECLI:NL:RBARN:2007:BA0339

X BV in the Netherlands was a wholesaler in garden related (gift) articles. Customers are located in the Netherlands and abroad (especially in Western Europe, the United States and Canada). Procurement of the products is mainly done in China. Delivery of the products is made directly by the producer to [X] BV or to its other clients. As compensation for procurement activities performed by the [X Limited] in Hong Kong, X group BV pays a 10% surcharge on the purchase price paid by [X Limited] to its Chinese suppliers. This surcharge is passed on in the cost price of the products. The tax administration held that the compensation [X Limited] receives for its procurement activities is (much) too high. The District Court disagreed and decided in favor of X Group BV. Click here for other translation Netherland vs BV 2007 ... Read more
Netherlands vs "Holding B.V.", March 2007, District Court, Case No AWB 06/288, V-N 2007/35.6

Netherlands vs “Holding B.V.”, March 2007, District Court, Case No AWB 06/288, V-N 2007/35.6

“Holding B.V.” is a holding company. The actual activity of the [X] group in the Netherlands – a wholesale trade in garden-related (gift) items – takes place in [X] B.V. The latter is included in a fiscal consolidation for corporate tax purposes with “Holding B.V.”. Customers of [X] B.V. are located in both the Netherlands and abroad (particularly in Western Europe, the United States and Canada). The products are purchased in China in particular and supplied direct by the producer to [X] B.V. or to its other customers. The procurement company – X Limited has an office and a showroom in Hong Kong, and employs a staff of five. The core activities of X Limited consist of quality control, logistics, product development, purchasing and sales. As remuneration for its activities, [X] B.V. pays a mark-up of 10% on the purchase price paid by X Limited to its Chinese suppliers. The tax authorities issued an assessment where the remuneration of the ... Read more
Netherlands vs "Metal Packaging Procurement B.V.", April 2004, Hoge Raad, Case No 39542, ECLI:NL:HR:2004:AO9474

Netherlands vs “Metal Packaging Procurement B.V.”, April 2004, Hoge Raad, Case No 39542, ECLI:NL:HR:2004:AO9474

This case concerns allocation of profits resulting from centralizing procurement functions within a group. The tax authorities took the position that the profit claimed by a centralized purchasing office was not aligned with the functions performed and the risks assumed by the office. According to the tax authorities profits derived from the realized discounts should be distributed to the members of the group (including a Dutch member) in proportion to their contribution of purchasing volume. Judgement of the Court The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the tax authorities. Profits in excess of the costs of the centralized purchase office with a markup of 5%, should at arm’s length be distributed to the members of the group in proportion to their contribution of purchasing volume. Excerpts “5.14. Notwithstanding the fact that [A-2 NV]’s profit was not so much caused by its own efforts but by the group’s policy of concentrating the price negotiations in [A-2 NV], and the extremely limited ... Read more