On 30 November 2012, X sold its trademarks to subsidiary C which in turn sold the trademarks to subsidiary D. X and D then entered into a trademark license agreement according to which X would pay license fees to D. These license fees were deducted by X in its 2013 tax return. The tax authorities claimed that X had understated its taxabel income as the license fees paid by X to D for the use of trademarks were not related to obtaining or securing a source of revenue. The decision stated that in the light of the principles of logic and experience, the actions taken by the taxpayer made no sense and were not aimed at achieving the revenue in question, but instead at generating costs artificially – only for tax purposes. An appeal was filed by X. Judgement of the Administrative Court The court set aside the assessment of the tax authorities and decided in favor of X. According ... Read more

Recordati Industria Chimica e Farmaceutica S.p.A had been issued an assessment by the tax authorities for FY 2003 on various issues related to transfer pricing. Recordati Industria Chimica e Farmaceutica S.p.A. disagreed with the assessment and brought the case to court. The Regional Tax Commission of Lombardy (Ctr) issued a decision where it partially annulled the assessment. This decision was challenged both by the tax authorities and Recordati Industria Chimica e Farmaceutica S.p.A. Judgement of the Supreme Court Before the Supreme Court there were 29 issues to be resolved. The Supreme Court predominantly ruled in favour of the tax authorities. The court confirms that transfer pricing adjustments are applicable even in the absence of proof by the administration of a concrete tax advantage by the taxpayer. The shift of taxable income following transactions between companies belonging to the same group and subject to different national regulations, does not require the administration to prove the elusive function, but only the existence ... Read more

The issue is whether MIL (INVESTMENTS) S.A. was exempt from Canadian income tax in respect of the capital gain of $425,853,942 arising in FY 1997 on the sale of shares of Diamond Field Resources Inc. by virtue of the Canadian Income Tax Act and the Convention Between Canada and The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital (“Treaty”). The Canadian Tax Authorities found that MIL was not exempt under local anti avoidance provisions and issued an assessment where the capital gain had been added to the taxable income. Disagreeing with the assessment, MIL (INVESTMENTS) S.A. filed an appeal with the Tax Court. The tax court allowed the appeal of MIL (INVESTMENTS) S.A. and set aside the assessment issued by the tax authorities. An appeal was then filed with the Federal Court by the tax authorities. Judgement of Federal Court The Federal Court ... Read more

The issue is whether MIL (INVESTMENTS) S.A. was exempt from Canadian income tax in respect of the capital gain of $425,853,942 arising in its 1997 taxation year on the sale of shares of Diamond Field Resources Inc. by virtue of the Canadian Income Tax Act and the Convention Between Canada and The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital (“Treaty”). The Canadian Tax Authorities found that MIL was not exempt under local anti avoidance provisions and issued an assessment where the capital gain had been added to the taxable income. Disagreeing with the assessment, MIL (INVESTMENTS) S.A. filed an appeal with the Tax Court. Judgement of Tax Court The court allowed the Appeal of MIL investments and set aside the assessment issued by the tax authorities. Excerpts “Accordingly, having found that, at the time of the Series, DFR had no desire of ... Read more