Tag: Transfer pricing documentation

Denmark vs Tetra Pak Processing Systems A/S, April 2021, Supreme Court, Case No BS-19502/2020-HJR

Denmark vs Tetra Pak Processing Systems A/S, April 2021, Supreme Court, Case No BS-19502/2020-HJR

The Danish tax authorities had issued a discretionary assessment of the taxable income of Tetra Pak Processing Systems A/S due to inadequate transfer pricing documentation and continuous losses. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court found that the TP documentation provided by the company did not comply to the required standards. The TP documentation did state how prices between Tetra Pak and the sales companies had been determined and did not contain a comparability analysis, as required under the current § 3 B, para. 5 of the Tax Control Act and section 6 of the Danish administrative ordinance regarding transfer pricing documentation. Against this background, the Supreme Court found that the TP documentation was deficient to such an extent that it had to be equated with missing documentation. The Supreme Court agreed that Tetra Pak’s taxable income for FY 2005-2009 could be determined on a discretionary basis. According to the Supreme Court Tetra Pak had not proved that the ... Continue to full case

OECD COVID-19 TPG paragraph 69

The determination of the economic relevance of government support will inform its effect, if any, on accurately delineating the controlled transaction and performing the comparability analysis. If the government assistance is an economically relevant characteristic, this information should be included as a part of the documentation to support the transfer pricing analysis ... Continue to full case
Denmark vs. ECCO A/S , October 2020, High Court, Case No SKM2020.397.VLR

Denmark vs. ECCO A/S , October 2020, High Court, Case No SKM2020.397.VLR

ECCO A/S is the parent company of a multinational group, whose main activity is the design, development, production and sale of shoes. The group was founded in 1963, and has since gone from being a small Danish shoe manufacturer to being a global player with about 20,000 employees and with sales and production subsidiaries in a large number of countries. ECCO purchased goods from both internal and external producers, and at issue was whether transactions with it’s foreign subsidiaries had been conducted at arm’s length terms. ECCO had prepared two sets of two transfer pricing documentation, both of which were available when the tax authorities issued its assessment. The transfer pricing documentation contained a review of the parent company’s pricing and terms in relation to both internal and external production companies, and a comparability analyzes. The High Court issued a decision in favor of the ECCO A/S. The Court found that the transfer pricing documentation was not deficient to such ... Continue to full case
Denmark vs. Software A/S, September 2020, Tax Court, Case no SKM2020.387.LSR

Denmark vs. Software A/S, September 2020, Tax Court, Case no SKM2020.387.LSR

Software A/S was a fully fledged Danish distributor of software an related services up until 2010 where the company was converted into a commissionaire dealing on behalf of a newly established sales and marketing hub in Switzerland. Following an audit, the Danish tax authorities issued a assessment where additional taxable income from the transfer of intangibles to Switzerland in 2010 had been determined by application of the DCF valuation model. As no transfer pricing documentation had been prepared on the transfer, the assessment was issued on a discretionary basis. Software A/S filed a complaint to the Danish Tax Court. The Tax Court found that the tax authorities did not have the authority to make a discretionary assessment. It was emphasized that the company in its transfer pricing documentation had described the relevant circumstances for the restructuring. Furthermore, the company had analyzed functions and risks and prepared comparability analyzes for transactions before and after the restructuring. However, the Tax Court found ... Continue to full case
Canada vs Bayer Inc. July 2020, Federal Court, T-272-19

Canada vs Bayer Inc. July 2020, Federal Court, T-272-19

Bayer Inc, is a Canadian subsidiary of Bayer AG Germany. Bayer is a multinational group of companies in the pharmaceutical and life sciences industry . Since 2016, the Canada Revenue Agency has been auditing Bayer Inc. 2013-2015 taxation years. Between December 2017 and August 2018, the CRA made a series of requests to Bayer Canada for copies of agreements that had been negotiated at arm’s length with respect to the activities that are being examined in the audit. On August 21, 2018, the CRA issued Query No 17 to Bayer Canada, in which it revised its previous requests as follows: Pursuant to our discussion on July 18, 2018, we would like to audit agreements made between any member of the Bayer Group with third party(s) in force during the 2013 and 2014 taxation years that perform some or all of the following activities in regards to pharmaceutical products: ‐  Are located in an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”) member ... Continue to full case
Denmark vs. Adecco A/S, June 2020, Supreme Court, Case No SKM2020.303.HR

Denmark vs. Adecco A/S, June 2020, Supreme Court, Case No SKM2020.303.HR

The question in this case was whether royalty payments from a loss making Danish subsidiary Adecco A/S (H1 A/S in the decision) to its Swiss parent company Adecco SA (G1 SA in the decision – an international provider of temporary and permanent employment services active throughout the entire range of sectors in Europe, the Americas, the Middle East and Asia – for use of trademarks and trade names, knowhow, international network intangibles, and business concept were deductible expenses for tax purposes or not. In  2013, the Danish tax authorities (SKAT) had amended Adecco A/S’s taxable income for the years 2006-2009 by a total of DKK 82 million. Adecco A/S submitted that the company’s royalty payments were operating expenses deductible under section 6 (a) of the State Tax Act and that it was entitled to tax deductions for royalty payments of 1.5% of the company’s turnover in the first half of 2006 and 2% up to and including 2009, as these ... Continue to full case
Denmark vs Icemachine Manufacturer A/S, June 2020, National Court, Case No SKM2020.224.VLR

Denmark vs Icemachine Manufacturer A/S, June 2020, National Court, Case No SKM2020.224.VLR

At issue was the question of whether the Danish tax authorities had been entitled to make a discretionary assessment of the taxable income of Icemachine Manufacturer A/S due to inadequate transfer pricing documentation and continuous losses. And if such a discretionary assessment was justified, the question of whether the company had lifted the burden of proof that the tax authorities’ estimates had been clearly unreasonable. The Court ruled that the transfer pricing documentation provided by the company was so inadequate that it did not provide the tax authorities with a sufficient basis for determining whether the arm’s length principle had been followed. The tax authorities had therefore been entitled to make a discretionary assessment of the taxable income. For that purpose the Court found that the tax authorities had been justified in using the TNM method with the Danish company as the tested party, since sufficiently reliable information on the sales companies in the group had not been provided. (In April 2021 ... Continue to full case

TPG2020 Chapter X paragraph 10.124

A potential difficulty for tax administrations in analysing cash pooling arrangements is that the various entities in a cash pool may be resident across a number of jurisdictions, potentially making it difficult to access sufficient information to verify the position as set out by the taxpayer. It would be of assistance to tax authorities if MNE groups would provide information on the structuring of the pool and the returns to the cash pool leader and the members in the cash pool as part of their transfer pricing documentation. (See Annex I to Chapter V of these Guidelines about the information to be included in the master file) ... Continue to full case
Panama vs "Glass Corp", February 2020, Administrative Tribunal, Case No TAT-RF-015

Panama vs “Glass Corp”, February 2020, Administrative Tribunal, Case No TAT-RF-015

“Glass Corp” Panama, was issued a fine for not filing (in time) Transfer Pricing Report – Form 930 – for the fiscal year 2012. Article 762-I of the Tax Code in Panama establishes that failure to comply with filing obligation of transfer pricing documentation results in a fine of 1% of the total amount of the transactions with related parties. The decision of the Court “since it has been demonstrated that the formal duty to submit the Transfer Pricing Report contained in Article 762-I of the Tax Code has not been fulfilled by the company, this Administrative Tribunal considers that it is appropriate to confirm Resolution No. 201-579 of 15 October 2014 and the administrative act by which the General Revenue Directorate resolves to maintain it in all its parts.” Click here for English translation Panama Exp. 176-18 ... Continue to full case
Panama vs "Oil Export S.A", May 2019, Administrative Tribunal, TAT-RF-057

Panama vs “Oil Export S.A”, May 2019, Administrative Tribunal, TAT-RF-057

“Oil Export S.A” Panama, was issued a fine of $ 1 mill. for not filing Transfer Pricing Report – Form 930 – for the fiscal year 2012. Article 762-I of the Tax Code in Panama establishes that “Failure to submit the report shall be sanctioned with a fine equivalent to 1% of the total amount of the operations with related parties. For the calculation of the fine, the gross amount of the operations shall be considered, regardless of whether they are representative of income, costs, or deductions.” The fine referred to in the paragraph shall not exceed one million balboas (B/.1,000,000.00). The decision of the Court “Consequently, since it has been demonstrated that —[“Oil Export S.A”]— did not comply with the formal obligation to submit the Transfer Pricing Report contained in Article 762-I of the Tax Code, the Tax Administration considers that it is appropriate to confirm Resolution No. 201-1429 of 24 October 2014 and its confirmation act.” Click here ... Continue to full case
Israel vs Kontera and Finisar, April 2018, Supreme Court, Case No. 943/16

Israel vs Kontera and Finisar, April 2018, Supreme Court, Case No. 943/16

In these two cases from Israel the Supreme Court rules on the issue of whether or not companies using the cost plus method must include stock-based compensation in the cost base. The Court concludes that stock-based compensation is an integral part of the compensation package of the Israeli subsidiaries’ employees with the objective of improving the quality of services rendered and strengthening the bond between the companies’ and employees’ cohesive goals. Therefore, such compensation should be included in the cost base. The Court also addressed the burden of proof in relation to transfer pricing disputes in Israel. Section 85 A (c) (2) provides that the burden of proof is with the tax authority if the taxpayer have submitted all required documentation, including a transfer pricing study, that “adequately substantiate” intercompany prices to be in accordance with arm’s length principle ... Continue to full case
TPG2017 Chapter V Annex III

TPG2017 Chapter V Annex III

Annex III to Chapter V Transfer Pricing Documentation – Country-by-Country Report A. Model template for the Country-by-Country Report Table 1. Overview of allocation of income, taxes and business activities by tax jurisdiction Table 2. List of all the Constituent Entities of the MNE group included in each aggregation per tax jurisdiction Please specify the nature of the activity of the Constituent Entity in the Additional Information” section. Table 3. Additional Information B. Template for the Country-by-Country Report – General instructions Purpose This Annex III to Chapter V of these Guidelines contains a template for reporting a multinational enterprise’s (MNE) group allocation of income, taxes and business activities on a tax jurisdiction-by-tax jurisdiction basis. These instructions form an integral part of the model template for the Country-by-Country Report. Definitions Reporting MNE A Reporting MNE is the ultimate parent entity of an MNE group. Constituent Entity For purposes of completing Annex III, a Constituent Entity of the MNE group is (i) any ... Continue to full case

TPG2017 Chapter V Annex II

Annex II to Chapter V Transfer Pricing Documentation – Local file The following information should be included in the local file: Local entity A description of the management structure of the local entity, a local organisation chart, and a description of the individuals to whom local management reports and the country(ies) in which such individuals maintain their principal offices. A detailed description of the business and business strategy pursued by the local entity including an indication whether the local entity has been involved in or affected by business restructurings or intangibles transfers in the present or immediately past year and an explanation of those aspects of such transactions affecting the local entity. Key competitors. Controlled transactions For each material category of controlled transactions in which the entity is involved, provide the following information: A description of the material controlled transactions (e.g. procurement of manufacturing services, purchase of goods, provision of services, loans, financial and performance guarantees, licences of intangibles, etc.) ... Continue to full case

TPG2017 Chapter V Annex I

Annex I to Chapter V Transfer Pricing Documentation – Master file The following information should be included in the master file: Organisational structure Chart illustrating the MNE’s legal and ownership structure and geographical location of operating entities. Description of MNE’s business(es) General written description of the MNE’s business including: –     Important drivers of business profit; –      A description of the supply chain for the group’s five largest products and/or service offerings by turnover plus any other products and/or services amounting to more than 5% of group turnover. The required description could take the form of a chart or a diagram; –      A list and brief description of important service arrangements between members of the MNE group, other than research and development (R&D) services, including a description of the capabilities of the principal locations providing important services and transfer pricing policies for allocating services costs and determining prices to be paid for intra-group services; –      A description of the main geographic ... Continue to full case

TPG2017 Chapter IX paragraph 9.33

As part of their transfer pricing documentation, MNE groups are recommended to document their decisions and intentions regarding business restructurings, especially as regards their decisions to assume or transfer significant risks, before the relevant transactions occur, and to document the evaluation of the consequences on profit potential of significant risk allocations resulting from the restructuring. In describing the assumption of risk as part of a business restructuring, it is recommended that taxpayers use the framework set out in Section D. 1.2.1 of Chapter I ... Continue to full case

TPG2017 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.53

Over the duration of the CCA term, the following information could be useful: a) any change to the arrangement (e.g. in terms, participants, subject activity), and the consequences of such change b) a comparison between projections used to determine the share of expected benefits from the CCA activity with the actual share of benefits (however, regard should be had to paragraph 3.74) c) the annual expenditure incurred in conducting the CCA activity, the form and value of each participant’s contributions made during the CCA’s term, and a detailed description of how the value of contributions is determined ... Continue to full case

TPG2017 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.52

The following information would be relevant and useful concerning the initial terms of the CCA: a) a list of participants b) a list of any other associated enterprises that will be involved with the CCA activity or that are expected to exploit or use the results of the subject activity c) the scope of the activities and specific projects covered by the CCA, and how the CCA activities are managed and controlled d) the duration of the arrangement e) the manner in which participants’ proportionate shares of expected benefits are measured, and any projections used in this determination f) the manner in which any future benefits (such as intangibles) are expected to be exploited g) the form and value of each participant’s initial contributions, and a detailed description of how the value of initial and ongoing contributions is determined (including any budgeted vs actual adjustments) and how accounting principles are applied consistently to all participants in determining expenditures and the ... Continue to full case

TPG2017 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.51

The transfer pricing documentation standard set out in Chapter V requires reporting under the master file of important service arrangements and important agreements related to intangibles, including CCAs. The local file requires transactional information including a description of the transactions, the amounts of payments and receipts, identification of the associated enterprises involved, copies of material intercompany agreements, and pricing information including a description of reasons for concluding that the transactions were priced on an arm’s length basis. It would be expected that in order to comply with these documentation requirements, the participants in a CCA will prepare or obtain materials about the nature of the subject activity, the terms of the arrangement, and its consistency with the arm’s length principle. Implicit in this is that each participant should have full access to the details of the activities to be conducted under the CCA, the identity and location of the other parties involved in the CCA, the projections on which the ... Continue to full case

TPG2017 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.1

This chapter discusses cost contribution arrangements (CCAs) between two or more associated enterprises. The purpose of the chapter is to provide some general guidance for determining whether the conditions established by associated enterprises for transactions covered by a CCA are consistent with the arm’s length principle. The analysis of the structure of such arrangements should be informed by the provisions of this chapter and other provisions of these Guidelines and should be based on an adequate documentation of the arrangement ... Continue to full case

TPG2017 Chapter VII paragraph 7.64

An MNE group electing for application of this simplified methodology shall prepare the following information and documentation and make it available upon request to the tax administration of any entity within the group either making or receiving a payment for low value-adding intra-group services. A description of the categories of low value-adding intra-group services provided; the identity of the beneficiaries; the reasons justifying that each category of services constitute low value-adding intra-group services within the definition set out in Section D. 1; the rationale for the provision of services within the context of the business of the MNE; a description of the benefits or expected benefits of each category of services; a description of the selected allocation keys and the reasons justifying that such allocation keys produce outcomes that reasonably reflect the benefits received, and confirmation of the mark-up applied; Written contracts or agreements for the provision of services and any modifications to those contracts and agreements reflecting the agreement ... Continue to full case