Tag: Transfer Pricing Guidelines

OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2017 - New version

OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2017 – New version

OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2017 – New version The OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprise and Tax Administrations provide guidance on the application of the “arm’s length principle”, which is the international consensus on transfer pricing, i.e. on the valuation for tax purposes of cross-border transactions between associated enterprises. In a global economy where multinational enterprises (MNEs) play a prominent role, transfer pricing continues to be high on the agenda of tax administrations and taxpayers alike. Governments need to ensure that the taxable profits of MNEs are not artificially shifted out of their jurisdiction and that the tax base reported by MNEs in their country reflects the economic activity undertaken therein. For taxpayers, it is essential to limit the risks of economic double taxation that may result from a dispute between two countries on the determination of the arm’s length remuneration for their cross-border transactions with associated enterprises ... Continue to full case
Spain vs McDonald's, March 2017, Spanish Tribunal Supremo, Case no 961-2017

Spain vs McDonald’s, March 2017, Spanish Tribunal Supremo, Case no 961-2017

This case is about adjustments made to a series of loans granted by GOLDEN ARCHES OF SPAIN SA (GAOS) to RMSA, throughout the period 2000/2004 for amounts ranging between 10,000,000 and 86,650,000 €, at a interest rate that between 3,450% and 6,020%. The tax administration argues that GAOS “has no structure or means to grant the loan and monitor compliance with its conditions … it does not have its own funds to lend, it receives them from other companies in the group”. In fact, the Administration refers to a loan received by GAOS from the parent company at a rate of 0%, which is paid in advance to receive another with an interest rate of 3.3%. The Administration indicates that “nobody, under normal market conditions, cancels a loan to constitute another one under clearly worse conditions”. The Court concludes as follows:: “As regards the OECD guidelines cited as violated the reason, this Chamber has already declared that they are not ... Continue to full case
Switzerland vs. Corp, Jan. 2015, Case No. 2C_1082-2013, 2C_1083-2013

Switzerland vs. Corp, Jan. 2015, Case No. 2C_1082-2013, 2C_1083-2013

In this case, the Swiss Court elaborates on application of the arm’s length principel, transfer pricing methods, OECD TPG, and the burden of proof in Switzerland. Excerp in English (unofficial translation) “5.1. The question of whether there is a disproportion between the service provided by the company and the compensation it provides is determined by comparison with what has been agreed between independent persons (“Drittvergleich”): the question is whether the benefit would have been granted, to the same extent, to a third party outside the company, or to check whether the “arm’s length” was respected. This method makes it possible to identify the market value of the property transferred or the service rendered, with which the counter-benefit actually required must be compared. 5.2. Where there is a free market, the prices charged therein are decisive and allow an effective comparison with those applied in the transaction examined. If there is no free market, but transactions with the same characteristics have ... Continue to full case
Kenya vs Unilever Kenya Ltd, October 2005, High Court of Kenya, Case no. 753 of 2003

Kenya vs Unilever Kenya Ltd, October 2005, High Court of Kenya, Case no. 753 of 2003

Unilever Kenya Limited (UKL) is engaged in the manufacture and sale of various household goods including foods, detergents and personal care items. UKL is a part of the world-wide Unilever group of companies. Unilever plc., a company incorporated in the United Kingdom has a very substantial shareholding in the UKL. UKL and Unilever Uganda Limited (UUL) are related companies. In august 1995 UKL and UUL entered into a contract whereby UKL was to manufacture on behalf of UUL and to supply to UUL such products as UUL required in accordance with orders issued by UUL. UKL supplied such products to UUL during the years 1995 and 1996.  UKL manufactured and sold goods to the Kenyan domestic market and export market, to customers not related to UKL. The prices charged by UKL for identical goods in domestic export sales were different from those charged by it for local domestic sales. The prices charged by UKL to UUL differed from both the above sales ... Continue to full case