Tag: TNMM

US vs Eaton, Oct. 2019, United States Tax Court, Docket No 5576-12

US vs Eaton, Oct. 2019, United States Tax Court, Docket No 5576-12

Eaton Corporation is a global manufacturer of electrical and industrial products headquartered in the US.  This case concerning the computation of penalties is related to a previous 2017 dispute concerning the cancellation of two advance pricing agreements (APAs) establishing a transfer pricing methodology (TPM) for covered transactions between Eaton Corp and its subsidiaries. In 2011 IRS determined that Eaton had not complied with the applicable terms of the governing APA revenue procedures and canceled APA I and APA II, effective January 1, 2005 and 2006, respectively. The US Tax Court found that the cancellation of the APAs was an abuse of discretion (US vs Eaton TC opinion from July 2017), and the APAs remained in effect. Irespective of the ruling related to the cancellation of the APAs, the IRS determined that a section 482 adjustment were still necessary to reflect an arm’s-length result for Eaton’s intercompany transactions, and that the computations should include 40% penalties pursuant to I.R.C. sec. 6662(h). Section 6662(a) imposes a ... Continue to full case
Portugal vs A S.A., October 2019, Tribunal Arbitral Coletivo, Case No 511/2018-T

Portugal vs A S.A., October 2019, Tribunal Arbitral Coletivo, Case No 511/2018-T

Company A is a Portuguese company in Group G (with an Indian parent) engaged in the production and sale of footwear and fashion accessories. Company C and Company D are also subsidiaries of the Group. Company A sold raw materials and goods to Company C and Company D, but also to unrelated parties. Company A had determined the pricing of the controlled transactions using the TNMM. External comparables were found using a commercial database. The Portuguese tax authority instead applied the TNMM using exclusively internal comparables, and on that basis it was concluded that the pricing of the controlled transactions had not been at arm’s length. The Tribunal found that the method applied by the tax authority was the most appropriate method for pricing the controlled transactions. Part 1 – Click here for translation Part 2 – Click here for translation P511_2018-T - 2019-10-10 - JURISPRUDENCIA ... Continue to full case
European Commission vs. The Netherlands and Starbucks, September 2019, General Court of the European Union, Case No. T-760/15

European Commission vs. The Netherlands and Starbucks, September 2019, General Court of the European Union, Case No. T-760/15

In 2008, the Netherlands tax authorities concluded an advance pricing arrangement (APA) with Starbucks Manufacturing EMEA BV (Starbucks BV), part of the Starbucks group, which, inter alia, roasts coffees. The objective of that arrangement was to determine Starbucks BV’s remuneration for its production and distribution activities within the group. Thereafter, Starbucks BV’s remuneration served to determine annually its taxable profit on the basis of Netherlands corporate income tax. In addition, the APA endorsed the amount of the royalty paid by Starbucks BV to Alki, another entity of the same group, for the use of Starbucks’ roasting IP. More specifically, the APA provided that the amount of the royalty to be paid to Alki corresponded to Starbucks BV’s residual profit. The amount was determined by deducting Starbucks BV’s remuneration, calculated in accordance with the APA, from Starbucks BV’s operating profit. In 2015, the Commission found that the APA constituted aid incompatible with the internal market and ordered the recovery of that ... Continue to full case
India vs Netafim Irrigation India Pvt. Ltd., May 2019, Tax Appellate Tribunal, Case No. ITA no.3668

India vs Netafim Irrigation India Pvt. Ltd., May 2019, Tax Appellate Tribunal, Case No. ITA no.3668

In dispute was royalty payments from an Indian subsidiary to it’s Israeli Parent company, Netafim, Israel. Following an audit the tax authorities set the royalty to nil. The Court dismissed the Revenue’s tax assessment. “Therefore, even assuming that CUP method has been applied by the Transfer Pricing Officer, it is apparent that he has not undertaken the exercise provided under rule 10B(i)(a) for determining the arm’s length price. Therefore, the contention of the learned Departmental Representative that the arm’s length price of royalty has been determined at nil by applying CUP method is totally unacceptable. Further, in case of Denso India Ltd. (supra), cited by the learned Departmental Representative, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has approved the decision of the Transfer Pricing Officer in applying TNMM for benchmarking the arm’s length price of royalty paid. In case of CLSA India Ltd. (supra) and Frigo Glass India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) cited by the learned Authorised Representative, the Tribunal has rejected applicability ... Continue to full case
Zambia vs Nestlé Trading Ltd, March 2019, Tax Appeals Tribunal, Case No 2018/TAT/03/DT

Zambia vs Nestlé Trading Ltd, March 2019, Tax Appeals Tribunal, Case No 2018/TAT/03/DT

Nestlé Zambia had reported continuous losses for more than five years. Following an Transfer Pricing audit covering years 2010 – 2014, the tax administration  issued an assessment whereby profits were adjusted to ZMW 56,579,048 resulting in additional taxes of ZMW13,860,103 plus penalties and other levies. The assessment was based on Nestlé Zambia being characterised as a limited risk distributor instead of a full fledged dristributor. Nestlé  Zambia held that the tax administrations characterisation of the entity as a limited risk distributor was incorrect and that the assessment had not been performed in accordance with the arm’s length principle.  The Tribunal ruled in favor of Nestlé, except for it’s position on the characterisation of the entity as a limited risk distributor (ground four cf. the excerp below). “The summary of our findings is  that  there  was  basis  for  initiating  a  transfer pricing audit in this case because as has been stated in  Paragraph  1.129  of  the OECD Guidelines that, “When an associated enterprise ... Continue to full case
Norway vs Stanley Black & Decker Norway AS , December 2018, Borgarting Lagmannsrett, Case No 2016-105694

Norway vs Stanley Black & Decker Norway AS , December 2018, Borgarting Lagmannsrett, Case No 2016-105694

At issue was the transfer pricing method applied on transactions between Black & Deckers Norwegian distribution company and the group trading hub in Luxembourg, Black & Decker Ltd SARL. The Norwegian tax authorities in 2013 issued a tax assessment of Black and Decker Norway AS where the taxable income for years 2005 – 2008 was increased with a total amount of NOK 50 million. The assessment was appealed to the Tax Appeals Committee where the amount was reduced to a total of NOK 26 million in line with recommendations of the tax authorities during the proceedings. The decision of the Tax Appeals Committee was upheld by the District Court and later the Court of Appeal where the appeal of Black & Decker was rejected. Click here for translation Norway vs Black & Decker december 2018 case no LB-2016-105694 ... Continue to full case
Italy vs BI S.r.l, November 2018, Tax Tribunal of Milano, Case no. 5445/3/2018

Italy vs BI S.r.l, November 2018, Tax Tribunal of Milano, Case no. 5445/3/2018

The Italian tax authorities had issued an assessment against a local distribution company of a multinational group, where the transfer pricing analysis conducted by the taxpayer had been disregarded. The tax authorities, carried out a new benchmark analysis based on the transactional net margin method (“TNMM”) and adjusted the company’s profitability to the median. The Tax Court cancelled the assessment, noting that the profitability range calculated by the tax authorities “goes, for the year 2013, from a minimum value of 1.40% to a maximum of 18.28%. The local distribution company obtained a 8.38%. Since the last percentage falls between the minimum and the maximum, for this judge the provisions of the aforementioned ministerial decree have to be applied (i.e. Ministerial Decree 14 May 2018)“. Click here for translation Commissione Tributaria Provinciale Lombardia Milano ... Continue to full case
Russia vs Togliattiazot, September 2018, Russian Arbitration Court, Case No. No. А55-1621 / 2018

Russia vs Togliattiazot, September 2018, Russian Arbitration Court, Case No. No. А55-1621 / 2018

A Russian company, Togliattiazot, supplied ammonia to the external market through a Swiss trading hub, Nitrochem Distribution AG. The tax authority found that the selling price of the ammonia to Nitrochem Distribution AG had not been determined by Togliattiazot in accordance with the arm’s length principle but had been to low. Hence, a transfer pricing assessment was issued where the CUP method was applied. At first, the company argued that Togliattiazot and Nitrochem Distribution AG were not even affiliates. Later, the company argued that transfer prices had been determined in accordance with the TNM-method. The court ruled in favor of the Russian tax authority. Based on information gathered by the tax authorities – SPARK-Interfax and Orbis Bureau Van Djik bases, Switzerland’s trade register, Internet sites, and e-mail correspondence etc – the tax authorities were able to prove in court, the presence of actual control between Togliattiazot and Nitrochem. The TNMM method applied by Togliattiazot was rejected by the court because ... Continue to full case
France vs GE Healthcare Clinical Systems, June 2018, CE n° 409645

France vs GE Healthcare Clinical Systems, June 2018, CE n° 409645

In this case, the French tax authorities questioned the method implemented by GE Healthcare Clinical Systems to determine the purchase price of the equipment it was purchasing from other General Electric subsidiaries in the United States, Germany and Finland for distribution in France. The method used by the GE Group for determining the transfer prices was to apply a margin of 5% to all direct and indirect production costs borne by the foreign group suppliers. For the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 the tax authorities applied a TNM-method based on a study of twenty-six comparable companies. The operating results of GE Healthcare France was then determined by multiplying the median value of the ratio “operating result/turnover” from the benchmark study to the turnover in GE Healthcare Clinical Systems. The additional profit was declared and qualified as constituting an indirect transfer of profits to the related party suppliers in the General Electric Group. The GE Group disagreed and brought the case ... Continue to full case
India vs Amphenol Interconnect India (Private) Ltd., March 2018, Bombay High Court, case no. 536

India vs Amphenol Interconnect India (Private) Ltd., March 2018, Bombay High Court, case no. 536

In the case of Amphenol Interconnect the issue was whether two transactions – the resale of goods and sales assistance services for a commission – could be aggregated for transfer pricing purposes and whether the CUP or the TNM was the most appropriate transfer pricing method. The court found that that the CUP Method could not be used for the buy/sell transaction because of differences in location, volumes and customisation. The transactions could be aggregated and benchmarked together using the TNM Method. India vs Amphenol-Transfer-Pricing-CUP-TNMM ... Continue to full case
Denmark vs. Danish Production A/S, Feb 2018, Tax Tribunal, SKM2018.62.LSR

Denmark vs. Danish Production A/S, Feb 2018, Tax Tribunal, SKM2018.62.LSR

The Danish Tax Tribunal found that the tax administration had been entitled to make an estimated assessment, due to the lack of a comparability analysis in the company’s transfer pricing documentation. The Tax Tribunal also found that the Danish company had correctly been chosen as tested party when applying the TNMM, although the foreign sales companies were the least complex. Information about the foreign sales companies was insufficient and a significant part of the income in the foreign sales companies related to sale of goods not purchased from the Danish production company. Click here for translation SKM2018-62-LSR ... Continue to full case
Russia vs Uralkaliy PAO, July 2017, Moscow Arbitration Court, Case No. A40-29025/17-75-227

Russia vs Uralkaliy PAO, July 2017, Moscow Arbitration Court, Case No. A40-29025/17-75-227

A Russian company, Uralkaliy PAO, sold potassium chloride to a related trading company in Switzerland , Uralkali Trading SA. Following an audit, the Russian tax authority concluded that Uralkaliy PAO had set the prices at an artificially low level. A decision was therefore issued, ordering the taxpayer to pay an additional tax of 980 million roubles and a penalty of 3 million roubles. Uralkaly PAO had used the transactional net margin method (TNMM). The reasons given for not using the CUP method was that no publicly accessible sources of information on comparable transactions between independent parties existed. The range of return on sales for 2012 under the TNMM was 1.83% – 5.59%, while Uralkali Trading SA’s actual profit margin was 1.81%. The court supported the taxpayer’s choice of pricing method (TNMM), and since the Swiss trader’s actual profit margin did not exceed the upper limit of the range, it was concluded that the controlled transactions were priced at arm’s length.  The court rejected ... Continue to full case
European Commission vs. The Netherlands and Starbucks, March 2017 and October 2015, State Aid Investigation

European Commission vs. The Netherlands and Starbucks, March 2017 and October 2015, State Aid Investigation

The European Commission’s investigation on granting of selective tax advantages to Starbucks BV, cf. EU state aid rules. EU-vs-Starbucks-March-2017-State-Aid-investigation-2 EU-Starbucks-2015 ... Continue to full case

Venezuela vs. Brightstar, 23. Feb 2017, Tax Court of Caracas

The Venezuelan tax authority claimed that Brightstar‘s profitability was not arm’s length, based on the profitability of comparable companies, cf. the Transactional Net Margin Method. The tax court ruled that Brightstar de Venezuela had correctly applied the TNMM and the tax auditors made a mistake when they calculated Brightstar’s profitability. The tax authorities should have analyzed each individual transaction and taken into account the segmented financial information of the audited transaction. The tax court annulled the adjustment due to non-compliance with the 2010 OECD TP Guidelines ... Continue to full case
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 two group companies were not found to be in accordance with the arm’s length principle. The issue under dispute was the use of TNMM introduced in Spain in 2006. The taxpayer had used the CUP method to verify the arm’s length nature of the transaction while the Spanish Tax administration found it more appropriate to use the TNMM. Prior to 1 December 2006, the Spanish Corporate Income Tax Act (CIT) established three methods of pricing related transactions (the “Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method”, the “Cost Plus Method” and the “Resale Price Method”) and if none were applicable it established the application of the “Transactional Profit Split Method” ... Continue to full case
Spain vs. CÍTRICOS Y REFRESCANTES, S.A., Oct. 2016

Spain vs. CÍTRICOS Y REFRESCANTES, S.A., Oct. 2016

The CÍTRICOS case is about the use of TNM-method in Spain prior to 2006. Article 16 of the pre-reform 2006 TRLIS, picked up the implementation of this method as a preferred respect to other methods. Following the amendment of the article, this preference has disappeared, invoking a new and more in line with the principles of the OECD. – Method net margin operations (TNMM) applied by the Administration. This method was not expressly admitted by the Spanish legislation prior to the 2006 reform. The tax administration justify their application of the method in the following notes: – Article 9 of the Hispano-Dutch Convention (Being market valuation of related-party transactions between an entity resident with a Dutch resident entity). In either case, when the two enterprises in their relations, joined by accepted conditions imposed, which differ from those which would be made between independent enterprises, the benefits of the companies would have obtained in the absence of these conditions and that ... Continue to full case
Czech Republic vs. Toll Manufacturer, Sep. 2016, Supreme Administrative Court, No. 5 Afs 194/2015 - 34

Czech Republic vs. Toll Manufacturer, Sep. 2016, Supreme Administrative Court, No. 5 Afs 194/2015 – 34

A Czech toll manufacturer realized losses due to low capacity utilization. Transfer pricing for the manufacturing services, had been determined by applying a cost plus method based on a budget costs without a year-end true-up. In 2008, capacity utilization was low due to market conditions and the company incurred a loss. The tax authority performed a benchmarking study using the transactional net margin method to determine the arm’s length range of net cost plus mark-ups, and issued an adjustment on that basis. The Czech manufacturing company argued that the loss was a result of market conditions and appealed the assessment. The Supreme Administrative court held that capacity utilization risk should be absorbed by the principal and not the low risk toll manufacturer. A low risk toll manufacturer may only end up in a loss position if extra costs result from its own risks – manufacturing inefficiencies. Hence, the appeal was dismissed. Click here for translation Czech vs. German Corp 2016 ... Continue to full case
India vs. Gap International Sourcing Pvt. Ltd., May 2016, ITA No.1077/Del./2016

India vs. Gap International Sourcing Pvt. Ltd., May 2016, ITA No.1077/Del./2016

Gap International Sourcing was engaged in sourcing products from India to other group companies. The activity comprised of assistance in identification of vendors, provision of assistance to vendors in procurement of apparel, inspection and quality control and coordination with vendors to ensure delivery of goods to group companies. The necessary technical and intellectual basis for provision of these services were provided by the group companies. The Indian company used TNMM to benchmark the service fee at full cost plus 15%. The tax administration disregarded the functional profile and characterisation of Gap International Sourcing by assuming that the functional profile was substantially higher than those of limited risk support service providers. The tax administration found that a cost plus form of remuneration did not take into account substantial intangible assets owned by the taxpayer. Intangibles were identified to be human asset intangibles, supply chain intangibles and location savings. Based on above, the tax administration set the arm’s length remuneration at a ... Continue to full case
India vs. L’oreal India Pvt. Ltd. May 2016, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

India vs. L’oreal India Pvt. Ltd. May 2016, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

L’oreal in India is engaged in manufacturing and distribution of cosmetics and beauty products. In respect of the distribution L’oreal had applied the RPM by benchmarking the gross margin of at 4o.80% against that of comparables at 14.85%. The tax administration rejected the RPM method on the basis that the L’oreal India was consistently incurring losses and the gross margins cannot be relied upon because of product differences in comparables. Accordingly, the tax administration applied Transactional Net Margin Method. L’oreal argued that the years of losses was due to a market penetration strategy in India – not non-arm’s-length pricing of transactions. The comparables had been on the Indian market much longer than L’oreal and had established themselves firmly in the Indian market. The Appellate Tribunal observed that L’oreal India buys products from its parent and sells to unrelated parties without any further processing. According to the OECD TPG, in such a situation, RPM is the most appropriate transfer pricing method. L’oreal India had also produced evidence from its parent that margin earned by the ... Continue to full case
Canada vs. Marzen Artistic Aluminum. January 2016

Canada vs. Marzen Artistic Aluminum. January 2016

The intercompany transactions at issue involved fees paid to the company’s wholly-owned Barbados based subsidiary during taxation years 2000 and 2001 for sales, marketing and support services. The Tax Court of Canada had determined that it was appropriate to apply the CUP method rather than the TNMM, which was advocated by the company’s expert. Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal upheld the decision by the Tax Court of Canada, which in 2014 ruled that the Canada Revenue Agency had largely been correct in reassessing the taxable income of Marzen Artistic Aluminum Ltd. Canada vs Marzen-v-the-Queen ... Continue to full case