Tag: Royalty fee payments

Payments of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use intellectual property, such as a copyright, patent, trade mark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process.

The European Commission opens in-depth investigation into tax treatment of Nike and Converse in the Netherlands

The European Commission opens in-depth investigation into tax treatment of Nike and Converse in the Netherlands

The European Commission has opened an in-depth investigation to examine whether tax rulings granted by the Netherlands to Nike may have given the company an unfair advantage over its competitors, in breach of EU State aid rules. Margrethe Vestager, Commissioner in charge of competition policy, said: “Member States should not allow companies to set up complex structures that unduly reduce their taxable profits and give them an unfair advantage over competitors. The Commission will investigate carefully the tax treatment of Nike in the Netherlands, to assess whether it is in line with EU State aid rules. At the same time, I welcome the actions taken by the Netherlands to reform their corporate taxation rules and to help ensure that companies will operate on a level playing field in the EU.” Nike is a US based company involved worldwide in the design, marketing and manufacturing of footwear, clothing, equipment and accessories, in particular in the sports area. The formal investigation concerns ... Continue to full case
European Commission vs McDonald, December 2018, European Commission Case no. SA.38945

European Commission vs McDonald, December 2018, European Commission Case no. SA.38945

The European Commission found that Luxembourg did not grant illegal State aid to McDonald’s as a consequence of the exemption of income attributed to a US branch. ...it is not established that the Luxembourg tax authorities misapplied the Luxembourg – US double taxation treaty. Therefore, on the basis of the doubts raised in the Opening Decision and taking into account its definition of the reference system, the Commission cannot establish that the contested rulings granted a selective advantage to McD Europe by misapplying the Luxembourg – US double taxation treaty ... Continue to full case

France vs IKEA, May 2017, CAA of Versailles, No 15VE00571

The French tax authorities had issued an assessment for the fiscal years 2002, 2003 and 2004 related to royalty fees paid by IKEA France to foreign group companies. It was claimed that the royalty fees paid were exessive. The Court reject the position of the authorities. It had not been proven that the fees paid by IKEA France to foreign IKEA companies were excessive based on the arm’s length principle and on Article 57 of the CGI. The Court stresses the irrelevance of the comparables presented by the administration: “Considering that the nine trademarks used as comparables by the administration relate to the French market, the furniture sector and distribution methods similar to that of Ikea; that, however, as the company Ikea Holding France argues, the Minister does not give any precise indication on the content of the services rendered to the franchisees of these trademarks in return for their royalty; these trademarks are notoriously inferior to Ikea’s and they ... Continue to full case
India vs LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd, December 2014, ITA

India vs LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd, December 2014, ITA

LG India is a wholly owned subsidiary of LG Korea, a multinational manufacturer of electronic products and electrical appliances. LG Korea and LG India entered into a technical assistance and royalty agreement in 2001 where LG India, as a licensed manufacturer, would pay a 1% royalty to LG Korea for the use of various rights for the manufacture and sale of products in India. The agreement also gave LG India a royalty-free use of the LG brand name and trademarks. The tax tribunal in 2013 held that the advertising, marketing and promotion (AMP) expenditure in excess of the arm’s length range helps to promote the brand of the foreign associated enterprise and that the Indian associated enterprise should necessarily be compensated by the foreign one. In reaching the above conclusion, the special bench applied the “bright line” test used by a US Court in DHL Corp v Commissioner. The 2014 Appeal Case Lg_Electronics_India_Pvt._Ltd.,_..._vs_Assessee_on_8_December,_2014 The Prior 2013 Judgement from the ITA LG_Electronics_AMP_Expenditure_Bright_Line ... Continue to full case
Norway vs Accenture, May 2013, Borgarting lagmannsrett, Case No 11-190854ASD-BORG/01

Norway vs Accenture, May 2013, Borgarting lagmannsrett, Case No 11-190854ASD-BORG/01

In this case, the royalty payments of Accenture Norway was at issue. The Norwegian tax authorities held that the royalty payments to Accenture Global Services in Switzerland had been excessive. The Court disagreed and found in favor of Accenture. Click here for translation Accenture Norway p ... Continue to full case
South Africa vs. BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd, March 2007, Supreme Court of Appeal, Case No 60 / 06, 2007-07

South Africa vs. BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd, March 2007, Supreme Court of Appeal, Case No 60 / 06, 2007-07

the Supreme Court of Appeal held that royalty payments are tax deductible in terms of s 11(a) of the Income Tax Act. It accordingly upheld an appeal by BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd against a judgment of the Income Tax Special Court. During 1997 BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd concluded a written trade mark licence agreement with its parent company BP plc in terms whereof it was granted authorisation to use and display the licensed marks and licensed marketing indicia of the latter against payment of royalties. For the tax years 1997, 1998 and 1999 the royalty fee payments were respectively R 40.190.000, R 45.150.000 and R 42.519.000. BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd subsequently claimed those payments as deductions in terms of section 11(a) of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 in the determination of its taxable income. The South African Revenue Services disallowed those deductions. BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd’s objection to the disallowance was overruled by the ... Continue to full case
US vs Hyatt Group Holding, Inc. and Subsidiaries, October 1999, United States Tax Court, No T.C. Memo. 1999-334

US vs Hyatt Group Holding, Inc. and Subsidiaries, October 1999, United States Tax Court, No T.C. Memo. 1999-334

At issue in this case were (the lack of) royalties payments to Hyatt and Hyatt International from foreign subsidiaries. Hyatt US had not recieved royalties from its foreign Subsidiaries. The IRS had determined a 1.5 % rate of hotel gross revenues for foreign subsidiaries use of Hyatt trade names and trademarks. The Tax Court found the 1,5 % rate unreasonable, but did not accept taxpayer’s argument that no royalties were due either. The Tax Court instead found that 0,4 % of hotel gross revenues was an arm’s length charge. H Group Holding, Inc. and Subsidiaries, Formerly HG, Inc. and Subsidiaries, et al. v. Commissioner ... Continue to full case