Tag: Swiss

Norway vs Normet Norway AS, March 2019, Borgarting Lagmannsrett, Case No 2017-202539

Norway vs Normet Norway AS, March 2019, Borgarting Lagmannsrett, Case No 2017-202539

In January 2013 the Swiss company Normet International Ltd acquired all the shares in the Norwegian company Dynamic Rock Support AS (now Normet Norway AS) for a price of NOK 78 million. In February 2013 all intangibles in Dynamic Rock Support AS was transfered to Normet International Ltd for a total sum of NOK 3.666.140. The Norwegian tax authorities issued an assessment where the arm’s length value of the intangibles was set at NOK 58.2 million. The Court of Appeal upheld the tax assessment issued by the tax authorities and rejected the appeal. Click here for translation Norway vs Normet 190319 ... Continue to full case
European Commission concludes on investigation into Luxembourg's tax treatment of McDonald's under EU state aid regulations, September 2018

European Commission concludes on investigation into Luxembourg’s tax treatment of McDonald’s under EU state aid regulations, September 2018

Following an investigation into Luxembourg’s tax treatment of McDonald’s under EU state aid regulations since 2015, the EU Commission concluded that the tax rulings granted by Luxembourg to McDonald’s in 2009 did not provide illegal state aid. According to the Commission, the law allowing McDonald’s to escape taxation on franchise income in Luxembourg – and the US – did not amount to an illegal selective advantage under EU law. The double non-taxation of McDonald’s franchise income was due to a mismatch between the laws of the United States and Luxembourg. See the 2015 announcement of formal opening of the investigations into McDonald’s tax agreements with Luxembourg from the EU Commission EU vs McDonal IP-18-5831_EN ... Continue to full case

Canada vs Cameco, November 2017, Pending case – C$2.2bn in taxes

Several mining companies are beeing audited by the Canadian Revenue Agency for aggressive tax planning and tax evasion schemes. Among the high-profile companies that have filed pleadings with the Canadian Tax Court are Cameco, Silver Wheaton, Burlington Resources, Conoco Funding Company and Suncor Energy. The CRA says, the companies inappropriately ran international transactions through subsidiary companies in low-tax foreign jurisdictions. In the Cameco case the Revenue Agency has audited years 2003 to 2015 and challenged Cameco Canada’s arrangements with a Swiss subsidiary. Cameco sells uranium to its marketing subsidiary in Switzerland, which re-sells it to buyers, incurring less tax than the company would through its Canadian office. The CRA position is that Cameco Canada was in fact carrying the uranium business – not Swiss Cameco subsidiary. The total tax bill for the 13 years: $2.1-billion, plus interest and penalties. Three tax years are currently being tried in the tax court, where a final decision is expected in late 2018 or ... Continue to full case
Sweden vs. Nobel Biocare Holding AB, HFD 2016 ref. 45

Sweden vs. Nobel Biocare Holding AB, HFD 2016 ref. 45

In January 2003, a Swedish company, Nobel Biocare Holding AB, entered into three loan agreements with its Swiss parent company. The loans had 15, 25 and 30 maturity respectively, with terms of amortization and with a variable interest rate corresponding to Stibor plus an interest rate margin of 1.75 percent points for one of the loans and 1.5 percent points for the other two loans. The same day the parent company transfered the loans to a sister company domiciled in the Netherlands Antilles. In June 2008 new loan agreements was signed. The new agreements lacked maturity and amortization and interest rates were stated in accordance with the Group’s monthly fixed interest rates. Amortization continued to take place in accordance with the provisions of the 2003 agreement, and the only actual change in relation to those agreements consisted in raising the interest rates by 2.5 percent points. These loans were transferred to a Swiss sister company. The Swedish Tax administration denied tax deductions corresponding to the difference between ... Continue to full case
France vs Société Lifestand vivre debout, 15 April 2016, CE

France vs Société Lifestand vivre debout, 15 April 2016, CE

In the case of Société Lifestand vivre debout, the Court considered that there was economic control in a situation where the rent for Swiss premises used by a Swiss entity was paid by a French company. The functions related to the activity of the Swiss company were actually performed by the French company. The French manager managed the Swiss company. Consequently, the transactions conducted between these two entities needed to comply with transfer pricing rules. Click here for translation Société Lifestand vivre debout _15_04_2016_CE no 372097 ... Continue to full case
European Commission opens formal investigation into Luxembourg's tax treatment of McDonald's under EU state aid regulations, December 2015

European Commission opens formal investigation into Luxembourg’s tax treatment of McDonald’s under EU state aid regulations, December 2015

The European Commission has formally opened an investigation into Luxembourg’s tax treatment of McDonald’s. Tax ruling granted by Luxembourg may have granted McDonald’s an advantageous tax treatment in breach of EU State aid rules On the basis of two tax rulings given by the Luxembourg authorities in 2009, McDonald’s Europe Franchising has paid no corporate tax in Luxembourg since then despite recording large profits (more than €250 million in 2013). These profits are derived from royalties paid by franchisees operating restaurants in Europe and Russia for the right to use the McDonald’s brand and associated services. The company’s head office in Luxembourg is designated as responsible for the company’s strategic decision-making, but the company also has two branches, a Swiss branch, which has a limited activity related to the franchising rights, and a US branch, which does not have any real activities. The royalties received by the company are transferred internally to the US branch of the company. The Commission ... Continue to full case
France vs. Nestlé water, Feb. 2014, CAA no 11VE03460

France vs. Nestlé water, Feb. 2014, CAA no 11VE03460

In the French Nestlé water case, the following arguments were made by the company: The administration, which bears the burden of proof under the provisions of Article 57 of the General Tax Code, of paragraphs 38, 39 and 42 of the Instruction 13 l-7-98 of 23 July 199 8 and case law, does not establish the presumption of indirect transfer of profits abroad that would constitute the payment of a fee to the Swiss companies A … SA, company products A … SA and Nestec SA. The mere fact that the association of the mark A … with the mark Aquarel also benefits company A … SA, owner of the mark A …, does not allow to prove the absence of profit and thus of consideration for NWE. The latter company also benefited from the combination of the two brands. Advertising alone are not enough to characterize an indirect transfer of profits abroad; in any case, the administration does not ... Continue to full case
France vs. Sociétè Nestlé Finance , Feb 2013, CAA no 11PA02914 and 12PA00469

France vs. Sociétè Nestlé Finance , Feb 2013, CAA no 11PA02914 and 12PA00469

In the Nestlé Finance case, a cash pool/treasury activity was transferred to a related Swiss entity. The function had been purely administrative, carried out exclusively for the benefit of parties related to the French company. The French company did not receive any compensation for the transfer of the cash pooling activity. First the Administrative Court concluded that the transfer of an internal administrative function to a foreign entity – even if the function only involved other affiliated companies ‘captive clientele’ – required the payment of arm’s-length compensation. This decision was then appealed and later revoked by a decision of the Administrative Court of Appeals. Click here for translation France vs Nestlè Finance 5 feb 2013 CAA no 11PA02914 . . . Click here for translation France vs Nestlè Finance 5 Feb 2013 CAA no 12PA00469 ... Continue to full case
France vs Vansthal International, March 1993, CAA, No 92NC00227

France vs Vansthal International, March 1993, CAA, No 92NC00227

In the case of Vansthal France the Court disallowed a transfer pricing policy under which a 20%-40% mark-up was added to payments to a Swiss entity because in its capacity as a billing centre the Swiss entity assumed no risk. Click here for translation France vs Vansthal, march 1992, CAA No 92NC00227 ... Continue to full case