Tag: Trade names

US vs. Veritas Software Corporation, December 2009

US vs. Veritas Software Corporation, December 2009

The issue in the VERITAS case involved the calculation of the buy-in payment under VERITAS’ cost sharing arrangement with its Irish affiliate. VERITAS US assigned all of its existing European sales agreements to VERITAS Ireland. Similarly,VERITAS Ireland was given the rights to use the covered intangibles and to use VERITAS US’s trademarks, trade names and service marks in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and in Asia-Pacific and Japan. In return, VERITAS Ireland agreed to pay royalties to VERITAS US in exchange for the rights granted. The royalty payment included a prepayment amount (i.e. lump-sum payment) along with running royalties that were subject to revision to maintain an arm’s length rate. Thereafter, VERITAS Ireland began co-developing, manufacturing and selling VERITAS products in the Europe, the Middle East and Africa markets as well as in the Asia-Pacific and Japan markets. These improvements, along with the establishment of new management, allowed VERITAS’ 2004 annual revenues to be five times higher than its 1999 revenues ... Continue to full case
The Netherlands vs X BV, February 2004, Appellate Court of Amsterdam V-N 2004/39.9.

The Netherlands vs X BV, February 2004, Appellate Court of Amsterdam V-N 2004/39.9.

X BV, is member of the English XX-group. One of X’s parents is XX Ltd., based in the United Kingdom. In 1992, X BV acquired licensing rights relating to the trade name J from J Ltd. Their value was determined to be GBP 19.2 million. According to the agreement, X BV paid GBP 19 million for the ten-year economic ownership of the licensing rights. J Ltd. sold the legal ownership to W BV for GBP 200,000 in which X BV owned all shares. In 1996, X BV sells the ten-year economic ownership to W BV for GBP 2 million. To support the GBP 19 million price for the economic ownership, a valuation report is drawn up in 1992. The valuation is based on “projected royalty streams” which showed increasing royalty streams over the ten-year period 1992-2002. The tax authorities disagrees with the price of GBP 19 mio. and argue that the total value of the brand was GBP 43 mio ... Continue to full case
Germany vs GmbH, August 2000, I R 12/99

Germany vs GmbH, August 2000, I R 12/99

In this case, a German group company’s payment for use of the group name, was not tax deductable in Germany. Guidance on payments for use of the group name has been provided in the Transfer Pricing Guidelines 6.81 – 6.85 and 7.12. As a general rule, no payment should be recognised for transfer pricing purposes for simple recognition of group membership or the use of the group name merely to reflect the fact of group membership. However, where one member of the group is the owner of a trademark or other intangible for the group name, and where use of the name provides a financial benefit to members of the group other than the member legally owning such intangible, it is reasonable to conclude that a payment for use would have been made in arm’s length transactions. In determining the amount of payment with respect to a group name, it is important to consider the amount of the financial benefit ... Continue to full case
US vs Hyatt Group Holding, Inc. and Subsidiaries, October 1999, United States Tax Court, No T.C. Memo. 1999-334

US vs Hyatt Group Holding, Inc. and Subsidiaries, October 1999, United States Tax Court, No T.C. Memo. 1999-334

At issue in this case were (the lack of) royalties payments to Hyatt and Hyatt International from foreign subsidiaries. Hyatt US had not recieved royalties from its foreign Subsidiaries. The IRS had determined a 1.5 % rate of hotel gross revenues for foreign subsidiaries use of Hyatt trade names and trademarks. The Tax Court found the 1,5 % rate unreasonable, but did not accept taxpayer’s argument that no royalties were due either. The Tax Court instead found that 0,4 % of hotel gross revenues was an arm’s length charge. H Group Holding, Inc. and Subsidiaries, Formerly HG, Inc. and Subsidiaries, et al. v. Commissioner ... Continue to full case