Tag: Service agreement

§ 1.482-4(f)(4)(ii) Example 6.

(i) Facts. The year 1 facts are the same as in Example 3. In year 2, FP and USSub enter into a separate services agreement that obligates FP to perform incremental marketing activities, not specified in the year 1 license, by advertising AA trademarked athletic gear in selected international sporting events, such as the Olympics and the soccer World Cup. FP’s corporate advertising department develops and coordinates these special promotions. The separate services agreement obligates USSub to pay an amount to FP for the benefit to USSub that may reasonably be anticipated as the result of FP’s incremental activities. The separate services agreement is not a qualified cost sharing arrangement under § 1.482-7T. FP begins to perform the incremental activities in year 2 pursuant to the separate services agreement. (ii) Whether an allocation is warranted with respect to the incremental marketing activities performed by FP under the separate services agreement would be evaluated under § 1.482-9. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to anticipate that FP’s ... Read more

§ 1.482-4(f)(4)(ii) Example 5.

(i) Facts. The year 1 facts are the same as in Example 3. In year 2, FP and USSub enter into a separate services agreement that obligates USSub to perform certain incremental marketing activities to promote AA trademark athletic gear in the United States, above and beyond the activities specified in the license agreement executed in year 1. In year 2, USSub begins to perform these incremental activities, pursuant to the separate services agreement with FP. (ii) Whether an allocation is warranted with respect to USSub’s incremental marketing activities covered by the separate services agreement would be evaluated under §§ 1.482-1 and 1.482-9, including a comparison of the compensation provided for the services with the results obtained under a method pursuant to § 1.482-9, selected and applied in accordance with the best method rule of § 1.482-1(c). (iii) Whether an allocation is warranted with respect to the royalty under the license agreement is determined under § 1.482-1, and this section through § 1.482-6. The comparability analysis would include consideration ... Read more
France vs. SARL Cosi Immobilier, April 2021, CAA de LYON, Case No. 19LY00527

France vs. SARL Cosi Immobilier, April 2021, CAA de LYON, Case No. 19LY00527

SARL Cosi Immobilier, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Swiss company Compagnie de Services Immobiliers SA (Cosi SA). The group is engaged in sale of properties and real estate. Following a tax audit covering the FY 2011 and 2012, an assessment of additional corporate income tax was issued, together with penalties. According to the tax authorities service fees paid by SARL Cosi to its Swiss parent (50% of the the sales commission received) for online marketing of properties and real estates located in France had not been at arm’s length. The company requested the administrative court of Lyon to discharge the assessments, but this request was rejected by the court in a judgement issued 11 December 2018. This decision was then appealed by the company to the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Appeal of Cosi Immobilier was rejected by the Court. Excerpts “In the present case, the company Cosi Immobilier concluded on 17 August ... Read more
Switzerland vs "Trust Administrator A. SA", September 2019, Federal Supreme Court, Case No 2C_343/2019

Switzerland vs “Trust Administrator A. SA”, September 2019, Federal Supreme Court, Case No 2C_343/2019

A Swiss company provided administration and other services to trusts. According to the company a related party in the Seychelles handled the daily business and received remuneration in accordance with an intra-group service agreement. Due to the service fees paid the Swiss company reported losses. Following an audit the tax administration issued an assessment where the fees paid to the related company in the Seychelles had been determined using the cost plus (5%) method. Judgement of the Supreme Court The court dismissed the appeal of A. SA and upheld the assessment of the tax authorities. The Court confirmed that the Seychelles company only performed routine functions without assumption of any significant risk. The cost plus 5% remuneration was therefore confirmed. Excerpts “4.6. According to the OECD Committee on Fiscal Affairs, by referring to the conditions that would prevail between independent enterprises for comparable transactions (i.e. for “comparable open market transactions”) in making the profit adjustment, the arm’s length principle takes ... Read more
Bulgaria vs "Telecom Bulgaria", November 2018, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 13993

Bulgaria vs “Telecom Bulgaria”, November 2018, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 13993

In 2004, a Management Services Agreement was concluded between Telecom Bulgaria (BTC EAD) and BTC Holding Limited, UK (the Operator), whereby the Operator was entrusted with supporting the overall management activities of the company, including the development and implementation of a general company performance policy, organisational structure, annual budgets, Strategic Plan and Business Plan. According to the contract it is agreed that for the services received Telecom Bulgaria shall pay to the operator a remuneration in the amount of 2.25% of the gross revenues. Furthermore, according to the agreement a fee of 1.25% would be paid by Telecom Bulgaria for technology – the provision or licensing of proprietary software and systems, material intellectual property rights, specialized technical research and consulting services, hardware and equipment, trade names and any other proprietary information will be provided by the Operator only pursuant to separate agreements. A Technical and Consultancy Services Contract between Telecom Bulgaria and BTC UK Limited (the contractor) was entered into ... Read more