Tag: Supply Agreement

Netherlands vs "Fertilizer BV", April 2022, Court of Appeal, Case No. ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2022:1198

Netherlands vs “Fertilizer BV”, April 2022, Court of Appeal, Case No. ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2022:1198

In 2016 Fertilizer BV had been issued a tax assessment for FY 2012 in which the tax authorities had imposed additional taxable income of €133,076,615. In November 2019 the district court ruled predominantly in favor of the tax authorities but reduced the adjustment to €78.294.312. An appel was filed by Fertilizer BV with the Court of Appeal. Judgement of the Court of Appeal Various issues related to the assessment was disputed before the Court. Dispute 1: Allocation of debt and equity capital to a permanent establishment in Libya in connection with the application of the object exemption. More specifically, the dispute is whether the creditworthiness of the head office was correctly taken as a starting point and a sufficient adjustment was made for the increased risk profile of the permanent establishment. The Court of Appeal answered this question in the affirmative, referring to the capital allocation approach that is regarded as the preferred method for the application of Article 7 ... Read more
Netherlands vs "Fertilizer BV", November 2019, District Court, Case No. ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2019:4920

Netherlands vs “Fertilizer BV”, November 2019, District Court, Case No. ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2019:4920

In 2016 Fertilizer BV had been issued a tax assessment for FY 2012 in which the tax authorities had imposed additional taxable income of €162,506,660. Fertilizer BV is the parent company of a fiscal unity for corporation tax (hereinafter: FU). It is a limited partner in a limited partnership under Dutch law, which operates a factory in [Country 1]. The interested party borrowed the money for the capital contribution to the limited partnership from a wholly-owned subsidiary. The share in profits from the limited partnership was expressed as profit from a permanent establishment. In dispute was the amount of interest attributable to the permanent establishment. The court followed the inspector in allocating – in connection with the [circumstances] in [Country 1] – 75% equity and 25% loan capital to the PE. Furthermore, the FU had deposits and loans in USD. These positions were partly hedged by forward exchange contracts. Fertilizer BV valued these deposits and loans at the historical acquisition ... Read more
Mexico vs Operadora Unefón, SA de CV, April 2013, Superior Chamber of the Federal Court of Fiscal and Administrative Justice, Case No 14253/08-17-05-3/1259/11-S2-08-04

Mexico vs Operadora Unefón, SA de CV, April 2013, Superior Chamber of the Federal Court of Fiscal and Administrative Justice, Case No 14253/08-17-05-3/1259/11-S2-08-04

A restructuring contract dated 16 June 2003 was entered between NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED and CODISCO INVESTMENTS LLC and promissory notes were issued by OPERADORA UNEFÓN, S.A. de C.V. Following an audit, an assessment was issued by the tax authorities, where the transaction was recharacterised and priced on an aggregatet basis taking into account the totality of the arrangement. Judgement of the Court The court upheld the assessment. According to the court, when the tax authorities carries out an audit of transactions between related parties, it must do so based on the structure and contractual agreements as determined by the associated enterprises. However, the general rule provides for two exceptions where the tax authorities may disregard the form and recharacterise the transactions for tax purposes. The first exception occurs when the economic substance of the transaction differs from its form. The second exception occurs when, although the form and substance of the transaction coincide, the arrangements relating to the transaction, taken ... Read more