Tag: Toll manufacturer

Netherlands vs Restructuring BV, September 2017, Rechtbank ZWB, No BRE 15/5683

Netherlands vs Restructuring BV, September 2017, Rechtbank ZWB, No BRE 15/5683

A Dutch company was engaged in smelting of zinc. The business was then restructured, for which the company received a small compensation payment. Dutch tax authorities disagreed with both the amount of compensation payment and the arm’s-length remuneration of the post restructuring manufacturing activities. Until 2003 the Dutch Company was a fully fledged business. The company owned the assets and controlled the risks relating to the activities. In the years after 2003, the company was involved in several business restructurings: Activities other than the actual production activities were gradually transferred to other group companies, among others the global marketing and services team (GMS), took over purchasing, sales and deployment of personnel. After becoming part of another group in 2007, the company entered a consultancy agreement with another group company under witch strategic and business development, marketing, sales, finance, legal support, IT, staffing and environmental services was now provided on a cost plus 7.5% basis. Under ‘Project X’, a Belgian company was established in April 2009, which concluded both a business transfer agreement and a cooperation agreement with related smelting companies ... 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