Tag: Statute of limitation

A statute limiting the period within which a specific legal action may be taken, such as the collection of tax, appeal from a decision of the tax authorities or lower court, etc.

France vs ST Dupont , April 2022, CAA of Paris, No 19PA01644

France vs ST Dupont , April 2022, CAA of Paris, No 19PA01644

ST Dupont is a French luxury manufacturer of lighters, pens and leather goods. It is majority-owned by the Dutch company D&D International, which is wholly-owned by Broad Gain Investments Ltd, based in Hong Kong. ST Dupont is the sole shareholder of distribution subsidiaries located abroad, in particular ST Dupont Marketing, based in Hong Kong. Following an audit, an adjustment was issued where the tax administration considered that the prices at which ST Dupont sold its products to ST Dupont Marketing (Hong Kong) were lower than the arm’s length prices. “The investigation revealed that the administration found that ST Dupont was making significant and persistent losses, with an operating loss of between EUR 7,260,086 and EUR 32,408,032 for the financial years from 2003 to 2009. It also noted that its marketing subsidiary in Hong Kong, ST Dupont Marketing, in which it held the entire capital, was making a profit, with results ranging from EUR 920,739 to EUR 3,828,051 for the same ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.49

The work on Action 14 of the BEPS Action Plan directly addresses the obstacle that domestic law time limits may present to effective mutual agreement procedures. Element 3.3 of the Action 14 minimum standard includes a recommendation that countries should include the second sentence of paragraph 2 of Article 25 in their tax treaties to ensure that domestic law time limits (1) do not prevent the implementation of competent authority mutual agreements and (2) do not thereby frustrate the objective of resolving cases of taxation not in accordance with the Convention ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.48

Where a bilateral treaty does not override domestic time limits for the purposes of the mutual agreement procedure, tax administrations should be ready to initiate discussions quickly upon the taxpayer’s request, well before the expiration of any time limits that would preclude the making of an adjustment. Furthermore, OECD member countries are encouraged to adopt domestic law that would allow the suspension of time limits on determining tax liability until the discussions have been concluded ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.47

Paragraph 2 of Article 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention addresses the time limit issue by requiring that any agreement reached by the competent authorities pursuant to the mutual agreement procedure shall be implemented notwithstanding the time limits in the domestic law of the Contracting States. Paragraph 29 of the Commentary on Article 25 recognises that the last sentence of Article 25(2) unequivocally states the obligation to implement such agreements (and notes that impediments to implementation that exist at the time a tax treaty is entered into should generally be built into the terms of the agreement itself). Time limits therefore do not impede the making of corresponding adjustments where a bilateral treaty includes this provision. Some countries, however, may be unwilling or unable to override their domestic time limits in this way and have entered explicit reservations on this point. OECD member countries therefore are encouraged as far as possible to extend domestic time limits for purposes of ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.46

Time limits for finalising a taxpayer’s tax liability are necessary to provide certainty for taxpayers and tax administrations. In a transfer pricing case a country may under its domestic law be legally unable to make a corresponding adjustment if the time has expired for finalising the tax liability of the relevant associated enterprise. Thus, the existence of such time limits and the fact that they vary from country to country should be considered in order to minimise double taxation ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.45

Relief under paragraph 2 of Article 9 may be unavailable if the time limit provided by treaty or domestic law for making corresponding adjustments has expired. Paragraph 2 of Article 9 does not specify whether there should be a time limit after which corresponding adjustments should not be made. Some countries prefer an open-ended approach so that double taxation may be mitigated. Other countries consider the open-ended approach to be unreasonable for administrative purposes. Thus, relief may depend on whether the applicable treaty overrides domestic time limitations, establishes other time limits, or links the implementation of relief to the time limits prescribed by domestic law ... Read more
Denmark vs "Fashion Seller A/S", November 2021, High Court, Case No SKM2021.582.OLR

Denmark vs “Fashion Seller A/S”, November 2021, High Court, Case No SKM2021.582.OLR

In order to avoid double taxation, “Fashion Distributor A/S” had requested the Danish Tax Authorities, in parallel to the review of a transfer pricing assessment, to conduct a mutual agreement procedure under Article 6 of the EC Arbitration Convention 1990. The Danish Tax Authorities rejected the request on the grounds that it did not contain the minimum information required by paragraph 5(a) of the Code of Conduct for the effective implementation of the Convention on the elimination of double taxation in connection with the adjustment of profits of associated enterprises (EU Code of Conduct 2006). Judgement of the High Court The Court held that the reference in Article 7(1) of the EC Arbitration Convention to Article 6(1) had to be understood as referring only to the ‘timely presented case’ and did not imply that case was also ‘submitted’ within the meaning of Article 7(1). Furthermore, the Court found that the company’s complaint of double taxation undoubtedly appeared justified, and that ... Read more
Spain vs Varian Medical Systems Iberica S.L., October 2021, Audiencia Nacional, Case No SAN 4241/2021 - ECLI:ES:AN:2021:4241

Spain vs Varian Medical Systems Iberica S.L., October 2021, Audiencia Nacional, Case No SAN 4241/2021 – ECLI:ES:AN:2021:4241

Varian Medical Systems Iberica S.L. is the Spanish subsidiary of the multinational company Varian Medical Systems and carries out two types of activities – distribution and after-sales services. The products sold was purchased from related entities: Varian Medical Systems Inc., Varian Medical Systems UK Ltd., Varian Medical Systems International AG and Varian Medical Systems HAAN GmbH. The remuneration of Varian Medical Systems Iberica S.L. had been determined by application of the net margin method for all transactions and resulted in a operating margin of 2.86% in 2005 and 2.75% in 2006. In 2010 an audit were performed by the tax authorities for FY 2005 and 2006, which resulted in an adjustment. The tax authorities accepted the net margin method, but made various corrections in its application. The adjustments made by the tax authorities resulted in a operating margin of 6.45% in the two years under review, The tax administration argued that the margins determined by Varian Medical Systems Iberica S.L ... Read more
Greece vs Cypriot company Ltd., September 2021, Tax Court, Case No 2940/2021

Greece vs Cypriot company Ltd., September 2021, Tax Court, Case No 2940/2021

This case deals with arm’s length pricing of various inter-company loans which had been granted – free of interest – by Cypriot company Ltd. to an affiliate group company. Following an audit of Cypriot company Ltd, an upwards adjustment of the taxable income was issued. The adjustment was based on a comparison of the terms of the controlled transaction and the terms prevailing in transactions between independent parties. The lack of interest on the funds provided (deposit of a remittance minus acceptance of a remittance) was not considered in accordance with the arm’s length principle. Cypriot company Ltd disagreed with the assessment and filed an appeal with the tax court. Judgement of the Tax Court The Tax Court dismissed the appeal of Cypriot company Ltd. in regards of the arm’s length pricing of the loans. Excerpt “It is evident from the above that the bond loan taken is related to the outstanding balance of the debt as at 31/12/2014 and ... Read more
Canada vs Amdocs CMS Inc., July 2021, Federal Court, Case No 2021 FC 707

Canada vs Amdocs CMS Inc., July 2021, Federal Court, Case No 2021 FC 707

An employee (tax manager) of Amdocs Inc did not cooperate with the Canada Revenue Agency during several audits of the company and did not inform his superior about the audits. The audits resulted in tax reassessments for FY 2012 – 2014. The reassessment concerning FY 2012 resulted in income tax payable by $3,353,906, but by the time the employee informed his superior of the reassessment in 2019, Amdocs was time barred from objecting by virtue of the limitation periods. With respect to the assessments for FY 2013 and 2014 the limitation period for objections had not yet elapsed. Amdocs Inc filed an appeal with the court in regards of the denied access to object on the assessment for FY 2012. Judgement of the Federal Court The court dismissed the appeal of Amdocs and decided in favor of the tax authorities. Excerpts “…I find the Minister’s decision is reasonable. The Minister’s decision is internally coherent and justified in relation to the ... Read more
Russia vs PJSC Vimpelcom-Communications, May 2021, Arbitration Court of Moscow, Case No. A40-36350/21-140-1024

Russia vs PJSC Vimpelcom-Communications, May 2021, Arbitration Court of Moscow, Case No. A40-36350/21-140-1024

PJSC Vimpelcom-Communications submitted to the tax authority a revised notice of controlled transactions for 2017, under which contract numbers for 68 transactions were adjusted, including an agreement with a foreign counterparty Veon Wholensale Services B.V. (Netherlands) for the provision of agency-services (the “Controlled Transactions”), and information was also provided on another transaction with another foreign counterparty. Based on the revised notification, the Russian Tax Authorities issued a decision on 29 December 2020 to conduct an audit with respect to pricing of the Company’s Controlled Transactions for 2017. The Company held that the tax authority’s decision as unlawful. The Company insisted that the Russian Tax Authorities had missed the two-year deadline for issuing a decision on the appointment of an audit, and therefore lost its right to conduct a price audit in respect of the 2017-transactions in question. Judgement of the Arbitration Court The court dismissed the complaint and decided in favor of the tax authorities. The court concluded that the ... Read more
UK vs GE Capital, April 2021, Court of Appeal, Case No [2021] EWCA Civ 534

UK vs GE Capital, April 2021, Court of Appeal, Case No [2021] EWCA Civ 534

In 2005 an agreement was entered between the UK tax authority and GE Capital, whereby GE Capital was able to obtain significant tax benefits by routing billions of dollars through Australia, the UK and the US. HMRC later claimed, that GE Capital had failed to disclose all relevant information to HMRC prior to the agreement and therefore asked the High Court to annul the agreement. In December 2020 the High Court decided in favour of HMRC GE Capital then filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal. Judgement of the Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the High Court and thus the assessment af the HMRC. HMRC-v-GE CAPITAL 2021 ... Read more
Spain vs DIGITEX INFORMÁTICA S.L., February 2021, National Court, Case No 2021:629

Spain vs DIGITEX INFORMÁTICA S.L., February 2021, National Court, Case No 2021:629

DIGITEX INFORMATICA S.L. had entered into a substantial service contract with an unrelated party in Latin America, Telefonica, according to which the DIGITEX group would provide certain services for Telefonica. The contract originally entered by DIGITEX INFORMATICA S.L. was later transferred to DIGITEX’s Latin American subsidiaries. But after the transfer, cost and amortizations related to the contract were still paid – and deducted for tax purposes – by DIGITEX in Spain. The tax authorities found that costs (amortizations, interest payments etc.) related to the Telefonica contract – after the contract had been transferred to the subsidiaries – should have been reinvoiced to the subsidiaries, and an assessment was issued to DIGITEX for FY 2010 and 2011 where these deductions had been disallowed. DIGITEX on its side argued that by not re-invoicing the costs to the subsidiaries the income received from the subsidiaries increased. According to the intercompany contract, DIGITEX would invoice related entities 1% of the turnover of its own ... Read more
Switzerland vs "Contractual Seller SA", January 2021, Federal Supreme Court, Case No 2C_498/2020

Switzerland vs “Contractual Seller SA”, January 2021, Federal Supreme Court, Case No 2C_498/2020

C. SA provides “services, in particular in the areas of communication, management, accounting, management and budget control, sales development monitoring and employee training for the group to which it belongs, active in particular in the field of “F”. C. SA is part of an international group of companies, G. group, whose ultimate owner is A. The G group includes H. Ltd, based in the British Virgin Islands, I. Ltd, based in Guernsey and J. Ltd, also based in Guernsey. In 2005, K. was a director of C. SA. On December 21 and December 31, 2004, an exclusive agreement for distribution of “F” was entered into between L. Ltd, on the one hand, and C. SA , H. Ltd and J. Ltd, on the other hand. Under the terms of this distribution agreement, L. Ltd. undertook to supply “F” to the three companies as of January 1, 2005 and for a period of at least ten years, in return for payment ... Read more
UK vs GE Capital, December 2020, High Court, Case No [2020] EWHC 1716

UK vs GE Capital, December 2020, High Court, Case No [2020] EWHC 1716

In 2005 an agreement was entered between the UK tax authority and GE Capital, whereby GE Capital was able to obtain significant tax benefits by routing billions of dollars through Australia, the UK and the US. HMRC later claimed, that GE Capital had failed to disclose all relevant information to HMRC prior to the agreement and therefore asked the High Court to annul the agreement. The High Court ruled that HMRC could pursue the claim against GE in July 2020. Judgement of the High Court The High Court ruled in favour of the tax authorities. UK vs GE 2021 COA 1716 ... Read more
Romania vs Lender A. SA, December 2020, Supreme Court, Case No 6512/2020

Romania vs Lender A. SA, December 2020, Supreme Court, Case No 6512/2020

In this case, A. S.A. had granted interest free loans to an affiliate company – Poiana Ciucas S.A. The tax authorities issued an assessment of non-realised income from loans granted. The tax authorities established that the average interest rates charged for comparable loans granted by credit institutions in Romania ranged from 5.45% to 19.39%. The court of first instance decided in favor of the tax authorities. An appeal against this decision was lodged by S S.A. According to S S.A. “The legal act concluded between the two companies should have been regarded as a contribution to the share capital of Poiana Ciucaș S.A. However, even if it were considered that a genuine loan contract (with 0% interest) had been concluded, it cannot be held that the company lacked the capacity to conclude such an act, since, even if the purpose of any company is to make a profit, the interdependence of economic operations requires a distinction to be made between ... Read more
Peru vs Colegio de Abogados de La Libertad, September 2020, Constitutional Court, Case No 556/2020

Peru vs Colegio de Abogados de La Libertad, September 2020, Constitutional Court, Case No 556/2020

In February 2019, Colegio de Abogados de La Libertad (CALL) in Peru filed an appeal before the Constitutional Court claiming that tax debts of at least 9 billion soles (USD 2,5 billions) owed by 158 large companies could not be collected by the tax authorities (SUNAT) due to the statute of limitation in Legislative Decree 1421. By four votes against and one vote for, the Constitutional Court rejected the claim. NoCOMPANY/TAXPAYERSTATUTE OF LIMITATIONS INVOKEDSTATUTE OF LIMITATIONS NOT INVOKEDTOTAL 1COMPAÑIA DE MINAS BUENAVENTURA S.A.A.2.083.106.4842.083.106.484 2SCOTIABANK PERU SAA1.076.546.4201.076.546.420 3COMPAÑIA MINERA ANTAPACCAY S.A.2.961.028725.065.302728.026.330 4MINERA LAS BAMBAS S.A.698.986.212698.986.212 5SOCIEDAD MINERA CERRO VERDE S.A.A542.560.586542.560.586 6TELEFONICA DEL PERU SAA301.180.21257.714.287358.894.499 7LATAM AIRLINES PERU S.A.332.312.17118.782.845351.095.016 8CONSORCIO MINERO S.A. EN LIQUIDACION122.737.710171.965.780294.703.490 9EMPRESA MINERA LOS QUENUALES S.A.255.456.549255.456.549 10AMERICA MOVIL PERU S.A.C.246.510.566246.510.566 11ENEL GENERACION PERU S.A.A.236.223.504236.223.504 12VOLCAN COMPANIA MINERA S.A.A161.464.638161.464.638 13SUPERMERCADOS PERUANOS SOCIEDAD ANONIMA 'O ' S.P.S.A33.294.659104.866.817138.161.476 14UNIVERSIDAD PERUANA DE CIENCIAS APLICADAS S.A.C128.889.678128.889.678 15COMPANIA MINERA ANTAMINA S.A119.550.076119.550.076 16ELECTROCENTRO S.A.111.905.388111.905.388 17UNION ANDINA DE CEMENTOS S.A.A. - UNACEM S.A.A15.132.22692.121.037107.253.263 18UNIVERSIDAD INCA GARCILASO DE ... Read more
Switzerland vs "Contractual Seller SA", May 2020, Federal Administrative Court, Case No A-2286/2017

Switzerland vs “Contractual Seller SA”, May 2020, Federal Administrative Court, Case No A-2286/2017

C. SA provides “services, in particular in the areas of communication, management, accounting, management and budget control, sales development monitoring and employee training for the group to which it belongs, active in particular in the field of “F”. C. SA is part of an international group of companies, G. group, whose ultimate owner is A. The G group includes H. Ltd, based in the British Virgin Islands, I. Ltd, based in Guernsey and J. Ltd, also based in Guernsey. In 2005, K. was a director of C. SA. On December 21 and December 31, 2004, an exclusive agreement for distribution of “F” was entered into between L. Ltd, on the one hand, and C. SA , H. Ltd and J. Ltd, on the other hand. Under the terms of this distribution agreement, L. Ltd. undertook to supply “F” to the three companies as of January 1, 2005 and for a period of at least ten years, in return for payment ... Read more
Greece vs "O.P.A.P. PROVISION OF SERVICES S.A.", February 2020, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No A 320/2020

Greece vs “O.P.A.P. PROVISION OF SERVICES S.A.”, February 2020, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No A 320/2020

The tax authorities had issued a TP adjustment for FY 2013 later than 18 month after initiating an audit of “O.P.A.P. PROVISION OF SERVICES S.A.” “O.P.A.P. PROVISION OF SERVICES S.A.” disagreed with legal basis for the assessment and filed an appeal. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of “O.P.A.P. PROVISION OF SERVICES S.A.” and dismissed the assessment issued by the tax authorities. Since, the tax authorities had not carried out and completed its own tax audit within 18 months, these cases were considered definitively closed and time-barred after the 18-month period has passed. In other words, for these cases, the limitation period of the State’s audit right is 18 months and not five years. According to the Supreme Court, a re-inspection could only be carried out after the 18-month period, but within the normal five-year limitation if serious offenses were found concerning money laundering from criminal activities or transactions with non-existent tax companies or issuing ... Read more
Malaysia vs Shell Timur Sdn Bhd, June 2019, High Court, Case No BA-25-81-12/2018

Malaysia vs Shell Timur Sdn Bhd, June 2019, High Court, Case No BA-25-81-12/2018

In FY 2005 Shell Timur Sdn Bhd in Malaysia had sold its economic rights in trademarks to a group company, Shell Brands International AG. The sum (RM257,200,000.00) had not been included in the taxable income, but had – according to Shell – been treated as a capital receipt which is not taxable. The tax authorities conducted a transfer pricing audit beginning in June 2015 and which was finalized in 2018. Following the audit an assessment was issued where the gain had been added to the taxable income of Shell Timur Sdn Bhd. According to the tax authorities they were allowed to issue the assessment after the statutory 5-year time-bar in cases of fraud, wilful default or negligence of a taxpayer. An application for leave was filed by Shell. Courts decision The Court dismissed the application. Excerpt “I am, by the doctrine of stare decisis, bound by these pronouncements of the Court of Appeal and Federal Court. Hence, it is crystal ... Read more
France vs ST Dupont, March 2019, Administrative Court of Paris, No 1620873, 1705086/1-3

France vs ST Dupont, March 2019, Administrative Court of Paris, No 1620873, 1705086/1-3

ST Dupont is a French luxury manufacturer of lighters, pens and leather goods. It is majority-owned by the Dutch company, D&D International, which is wholly-owned by Broad Gain Investments Ltd, based in Hong Kong. ST Dupont is the sole shareholder of distribution subsidiaries located abroad, in particular ST Dupont Marketing, based in Hong Kong. Following an audit, an adjustment was issued for FY 2009, 2010 and 2011 where the tax administration considered that the prices at which ST Dupont sold its products to ST Dupont Marketing (Hong Kong) were lower than the arm’s length prices, that royalty rates had not been at arm’s length. Furthermore adjustments had been made to losses carried forward. Not satisfied with the adjustment ST Dupont filed an appeal with the Paris administrative Court. Judgement of the Administrative Court The Court set aside the tax assessment in regards to license payments and resulting adjustments to loss carry forward but upheld in regards of pricing of the ... Read more
Spain vs. Schwepps (Citresa), February 2017, Spanish Supreme Court, case nr. 293/2017

Spain vs. Schwepps (Citresa), February 2017, Spanish Supreme Court, case nr. 293/2017

The Spanish Tax administration made an income adjustment of Citresa (a Spanish subsidiary of the Schweeps Group) Corporate Income Tax for FY 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, resulting in a tax liability of €38.6 millon. Citresa entered into a franchise agreement and a contract manufacturing agreement with Schweppes International Limited (a related party resident in the Netherlands). The transactions between the related parties were not found to be in accordance with the arm’s length principle. In the parent company, CITRESA, the taxable income declared for the years 2003 to 2005 was increased as a result of an adjustment of market prices relating to the supply of certain fruit and other components by Citresa to Schweppes International Limited. In the subsidiary, SCHWEPPES, S.A. (SSA), the taxable income declared for the years 2003 to 2006 was increased as a result of adjustment of market prices relating to the supply of concentrates and extracts by the entity Schweppes International Limited, resident in Holland, to SSA. The taxpayer ... Read more
Norway vs. ConocoPhillips, October 2016, Supreme Court HR-2016-988-A, Case No. 2015/1044)

Norway vs. ConocoPhillips, October 2016, Supreme Court HR-2016-988-A, Case No. 2015/1044)

A tax assessments based on anti-avoidance doctrine “gjennomskjæring” were set aside. The case dealt with the benefits of a multi-currency cash pool arrangement. The court held that the decisive question was whether the allocation of the benefits was done at arm’s length. The court dismissed the argument that the benefits should accure to the parent company as only common control between the parties which should be disregarded. The other circumstances regarding the actual transaction should be recognized when pricing the transaction. In order to achieve an arm’s length price, the comparison must take into account all characteristics of the controlled transaction except the parties’ association with each other. While the case was before the Supreme Court, the Oil Tax Board made a new amendment decision, which also included a tax assessment for 2002. This amendment, which was based on the same anti-avoidance considerations, was on its own to the company’s advantage. Following the Supreme Court judgment, a new amended decision was made in 2009, which reversed the anti-avoidance decision for all three years ... Read more
Denmark vs. Swiss Re. February 2012, Supreme Court, SKM2012.92

Denmark vs. Swiss Re. February 2012, Supreme Court, SKM2012.92

This case concerned the Danish company, Swiss Re, Copenhagen Holding ApS, which was wholly owned by the US company, ERC Life Reinsurance Corporation. In 1999 the group considered transferring the German subsidiary, ERC Frankona Reinsurance Holding GmbH, from the US parent company to the Danish company. The value of the German company was determined to be DKK 7.8 billion. The purchase price was to be settled by the Danish Company issuing shares with a market value of DKK 4.2 billion and debt with a market value of DKK 3.6 billion. On 27 May 1999, the parent company and the Danish company considered to structure the debt as a subordinated, zero-coupon note. Compensation for the loan would be structured as a built-in capital gain in order to defer recognition of the compensation for the period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000. The Danish company would be unable to use a deduction in income year 1999. A built-in capital gain should ... Read more