Tag: Sixth method

The sixth method or commodity rule is an approach used in certain countries of Latin America and elsewhere, and requires commodity market quoted prices of imported or exported goods at a specified date to be used to compute the transfer price. There are considerable variations both in the scope of the rule and its application.

Argentina vs Cargill S.A., May 2022, Tax Court, Case No 27.026-I (A 19462)

Argentina vs Cargill S.A., May 2022, Tax Court, Case No 27.026-I (A 19462)

Cargill Argentine SA channelled 98% of its commodity exports through a branch in Uruguay. Cargill Argentine SA invoiced the exports to the branch, but shipped the goods directly to the customers. The prices charged by the branch to its customers could be the same, lower or higher than the price charged by Cargill Argentine SA to the branch, hence it would assume the price risks from the time of purchase from Cargill Argentine SA until the final sale to each customer. Following an audit, the Argentine Revenue Service issued a transfer pricing assessment for FY 2000 to 2003. According to the tax authorities the pricing of the transactions between Cargill Argentine SA and the Branch in Uruguay had not been at arm’s length. Instead of pricing the commodities on the contract date, the tax authorities priced the transactions on the date of shipping – based on the so called sixth Method. An appeal was filed by Cargill Argentine SA with ... Read more
Argentina vs Malteria Pampa SA, October 2021, Federal Administrative Court, Case No TF 35123-A

Argentina vs Malteria Pampa SA, October 2021, Federal Administrative Court, Case No TF 35123-A

Malteria Pampa S.A in Argentina exported malt to a related intermediary in Uruguay that in turn sold on the goods to the brewery in Brazil at a higher price. The tax authorities applied the Sixth method and issued an assessment where the export price was determined based on the latter price used in the transaction with the brewery in Brazil. Furthermore a substantial fine was issued to the Malteria Pampa S.A. for non compliance. In February 2019 the Tax Court decided in favour of the tax authorities. “That the factual and legal points considered by the customs verification – corroborated in this pronouncement – complied with the application parameters of the TP rules invoked in the Technical Report, forming a solid conviction that the transactional prices of the sale declared in the field “Merchandise Value” of the PE 07-003-EC01-004994-P and PE N° 07-003- EC01-004995-Z of Maltería Pampa S. A. are manifestly inaccurate, constituting an under-invoicing that causes the plaintiff to ... Read more
Argentina vs Nidera S.A., June 2021, Supreme Court, Case No CAF 38801/2013/CA2-CS2

Argentina vs Nidera S.A., June 2021, Supreme Court, Case No CAF 38801/2013/CA2-CS2

Nidera S.A. exported commodities (cereals, oilseeds etc.) via group traders domiciled on the British Virgin Islands. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, in transactions involving entities domiciled in low-tax jurisdictions, it was presumed that prices had not been agreed in accordance with the arm’s length principle. The tax authorities issued an adjustment by applying the “CUP” method (Sixth method), considering the statistical average prices set as a reference value by the National Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, corresponding to the date of shipment (and not to the date of agreement as claimed by the claimant). However adjustments were only made to those transactions where the quoted price was higher than the one agreed by Nidera S.A. An appeal was filed with the National Court by Nidera S.A. In 2016 the National Court of Appeals issud ist decision in the case. The decision was in favour of Nidera S.A. in regards to the approach of the tax authorities ... Read more
Argentina vs Malteria Pampa S.A., February 2019, Tax Court, Case No 35.098-A

Argentina vs Malteria Pampa S.A., February 2019, Tax Court, Case No 35.098-A

Malteria Pampa S.A in Argentina exported malt to a related intermediary in Uruguay that in turn sold on the goods to the brewery in Brazil at a higher price. The tax authorities applied the Sixth method and issued an assessment where the export price was determined based on the latter price used in the transaction with the brewery in Brazil and a substantial fine was also issued to the Malteria Pampa S.A. for non compliance. Decision of the Tax Court “That the factual and legal points considered by the customs verification – corroborated in this pronouncement – complied with the application parameters of the TP rules invoked in the Technical Report, forming a solid conviction that the transactional prices of the sale declared in the field “Merchandise Value” of the PE 07-003-EC01-004994-P and PE N° 07-003- EC01-004995-Z of Maltería Pampa S. A. are manifestly inaccurate, constituting an under-invoicing that causes the plaintiff to engage in the conduct punishable by Article 954(1)(c) ... Read more

B.3. Methods

B.3. METHODS B .3 .1 .       Introduction to Transfer Pricing Methods B.3.1.1.                         This part of the chapter describes several transfer pricing methods that can be used to determine an arm’s length price and describes how to apply these methods in practice. Transfer pricing methods (or “methodologies”) are used to calculate or test the arm’s length nature of prices or profits. Transfer pricing methods are ways of establishing arm’s length prices or profits from transactions between associated enterprises. The transaction between related enterprises for which an arm’s length price is to be established is referred to as the “controlled transaction”. The application of transfer pricing methods helps assure that transactions conform to the arm’s length standard. It is important to note that although the term “profit margin” is used, companies may also have legitimate reasons to report losses at arm’s length. Furthermore, transfer pricing methods are not determinative in and of themselves. If an associated enterprise reports an arm’s length amount of ... Read more
Argentina vs Nidera S.A., March 2016, National Court, Case No CAF 38801/2013/CS1-CA1

Argentina vs Nidera S.A., March 2016, National Court, Case No CAF 38801/2013/CS1-CA1

Nidera S.A. exported commodities (cereals, oilseeds etc.) via group traders domiciled on the British Virgin Islands. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, in transactions involving entities domiciled in low-tax jurisdictions, it was presumed that prices had not been agreed in accordance with the arm’s length principle. The tax authorities issued an adjustment by applying the “CUP” method (Sixth method), considering the statistical average prices set as a reference value by the National Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, corresponding to the date of shipment (and not to the date of agreement as claimed by the claimant). However adjustments were only made to those transactions where the quoted price was higher than the one agreed by Nidera S.A. Judgement of the Court The National Court accepted Nidera S.A.’s appeal in regards to the approach of the tax authorities were only the unfavorable pricing were being adjusted whereas the favorable pricing were not, and referred the case back to the ... Read more
Argentina vs Alfred C. Toepfer International S.A., March 2015, Supreme Court TF 27.014-I

Argentina vs Alfred C. Toepfer International S.A., March 2015, Supreme Court TF 27.014-I

In the case of Argentina vs Alfred C. Toepfer International S.A,  the “sixth method” had been applied to intra-group transfers of commodities. Click here for Translation Argentina vs Alfred C Toepfer International SA TF 27-014-I ... Read more