At issue was whether the acquisition value of an inventory acquired from a related company should be adjusted on the basis of Swedish arm’s length provisions or alternatively tax avoidance provisions According to the arm’s length rule in Chapter 18, Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, the acquisition value is to be adjusted to a reasonable extent if the taxpayer or someone closely related to the taxpayer has taken steps to enable the taxpayer to obtain a higher acquisition value than appears reasonable and it can be assumed that this has been done in order to obtain an unjustified tax advantage for one of the taxpayer or someone closely related to the taxpayer. Company (A) acquired a trademark from another company (B) in the same group for a price corresponding to its market value and used the acquisition value as the basis for depreciation deductions totalling approximately SEK 827 million. At B, the tax value of the trademark amounted ... Read more

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 ... Read more

The question in the case was whether Cytec Norway KS (now Allnex Norway A/S) had paid an arm’s length price for an intra-group transfer of intangible assets in 2010. Cytec Norway KS had set the price for the accquired intangibles at NOK 210 million and calculated tax depreciations on that basis. The Norwegian tax authorities found that no intangibles had actually been transferred. The tax Appeals Committee determined that intangibles had been transferred but only at a total value of NOK 45 million. The Court of appeal upheld the dicision of the Tax Appeals Committee, where the price for tax purposes was estimated at NOK 44.9 million. Click here for translation ... Read more

Following an audit of “Cyprus Corp” for FY 2011, the tax authorities found that the intra-group purchases worth 6.363.281,83 € for mechanical and medical equipment from a group company in Cyprus, were overpriced by 3.833.503,78 €. Corporate taxation i Cyprus is significantly lower than in Greece. Hence, the overpricing resulted in the Cyprus Corp having technically increased its (high) tax depreciation in Greece and (low) tax profits in Cyprus, which in combination resulted in a lower overall tax payment of the group. An revised tax assessment – and a substantial fine – was issued by the tax authorities. Cypres Corp filed an appeal. Judgement of the Court The court predominantly decided in favor of the tax authorities. “Because, during the financial period 1/1-31/12/2011, Mr K. is a shareholder in the applicant company with a 22.81% share, chairman and managing director until 23/08/2011 and from 30/06/2010 to 01/11/2012 the sole shareholder of the Cypriot company ” “, with the result that ... Read more

Following an audit of “Cyprus Corp” for FY 2011, the tax authorities found that intra-group purchases worth 5.947.034,44 € for mechanical and medical equipment from a related company in Cyprus, were overpriced by 3.693.150,15 €. Corporate taxation i Cyprus is significantly lower than in Greece. Hence, the overpricing resulted in the Cyprus Corp having technically increased its (high) tax depreciation in Greece and (low) tax profits in Cyprus, which in combination resulted in a lower overall tax payment of the group. An revised tax assessment – and a substantial fine – was issued by the tax authorities. Cypres Corp filed an appeal. Judgement of the Court The court predominantly decided in favor of the tax authorities. “Because, in the financial period 1/1-31/12/2011 Mr. is a shareholder in the applicant company with a 28.18% share, and from 30/06/2010 to 01/11/2012 the sole shareholder of the Cypriot company ‘……. “, with the result that the transacting undertakings in the present case are ... Read more

Tax depreciation for wind turbines presupposes economic ownership of the asset. A change in economic ownership requires that any risks are transferred to the purchaser/customer. The German Supreme Tax Court held that economic ownership of an asset is not transferred at the time it generates income but rather when the risk of accidental destruction and accidental deterioration of the asset passes to the buyer. The contractual agreements to that effect are crucial. A German partnership (KG) operated a wind farm consisting of five wind turbines. Each wind turbine on a farm is a separate asset which is to be depreciated, or amortised, separately. In December 2003 the KG entrusted a GmbH with the turnkey construction of the turbines. The purchase price was payable in installments. The GmbH in turn engaged another company with delivery and installation of the wind turbines and also to take them into operation. According to the contract, the risk of accidental destruction and accidental deterioration of the ... Read more