Tag: VAT treatment of Transfer Pricing adjustments

Germany vs "H-Customs GmbH", May 2022, Bundesfinanzhof, Case No VII R 2/19

Germany vs “H-Customs GmbH”, May 2022, Bundesfinanzhof, Case No VII R 2/19

H-Customs GmbH – the applicant and appellant – is a subsidiary of H, Japan. In the period at issue, from 17 October 2009 to 30 September 2010, H-Customs GmbH imported more than 1,000 consignments of various goods from H, which it had cleared for free circulation under customs and tax law at the defendant HZA (Hauptzollamt – German Customs Authorities). H-Customs GmbH declared the prices invoiced to it by H Japan as the customs value. Some of the imported articles were duty-free; for the articles that were not duty-free, the HZA imposed customs duties of between 1.4 % and 6.7 % by means of import duty notices. In 2012, H-Customs GmbH applied to the HZA for a refund of customs duties for the goods imported during the period at issue in the total amount of… €. It referred to an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) concluded between it and H for transactions in the tax field and stated that the adjustments ... Read more
Italy vs "VAT ALFA S.p.A.", December 2021, Tax Ruling of the Italian Revenue Agency, Case No 884/2021

Italy vs “VAT ALFA S.p.A.”, December 2021, Tax Ruling of the Italian Revenue Agency, Case No 884/2021

A ruling was issued by the Italian Revenue Service on the following question on the VAT treatment of Transfer Pricing adjustments. 1) an internal CUP (Compared Uncontrolled Price) methodology is used, on the basis of which, net of appropriate adjustments, the price of goods charged by ALFA S.p.A. to its EU affiliates is compared with the price applied by the same company in transactions with independent third parties. The adjustments applied to the price identified by the CUP method, as clarified by the same applicant in the note forwarded at the time of submitting the supplementary documentation, consist of a discount of XX on the price of finished products that can be applied to independent third parties; this last reduction would be attributable to the higher costs borne by the subsidiaries compared to third party resellers; 2) at the end of the year, a corroborative analysis (sanity check) is carried out using the TNMM (Transactional Net Margin Method), aimed at ... Read more
Italy vs "VAT Group X", November 2018, Tax Ruling of the Italian Revenue Agency, Case No 60

Italy vs “VAT Group X”, November 2018, Tax Ruling of the Italian Revenue Agency, Case No 60

A ruling was issued by the Italian Revenue Service on the following question on the VAT treatment of Transfer Pricing adjustments. “Alfa represents that it is part of a multinational Group (hereinafter, the “Group”). The Group is implementing a new integrated development plan, aimed at the joint creation of products and platforms necessary for the production and marketing of goods under brand X. The legal and economic ownership of the X trademark and of the relevant know-how belongs to the non-EU company Beta, which acts as “Principal” and assumes all risks connected to the production and marketing of the goods, granting the trademark and the know-how free of charge to the subsidiaries engaged in the production and marketing of the X goods. The plaintiff entered into an intra-group agreement (the ‘Agreement’) with Beta, whereby Beta undertakes to act as contract assembler for the purpose of manufacturing X products, putting its own equipment at the disposal of Gamma (a company incorporated ... Read more
Italy vs Coim S.p.A., January 2018, Supreme Court, Case No 2240/2018

Italy vs Coim S.p.A., January 2018, Supreme Court, Case No 2240/2018

Following a judgement by Regional Administrative Tribunal an appeal was filed by Coim S.p.A Among various other issues Coim S.p.A. complains of breach and misapplication of Article 9 of Presidential Decree No 917 of 22 December 1986, pursuant to Article 360(1)(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that the Regional Administrative Tribunal held that the recovery of the higher price calculated on the basis of the presumed normal value of the transfers made by the taxpayer to certain subsidiaries was lawful. The taxpayer claims that the appeal judges erred in finding that the Office had correctly applied the so-called CUP (comparable uncontrolled price method) price comparison method to determine normal value, in particular as regards the identification of the relevant market, the different stage of marketing of the goods tested compared to the comparative goods and the different commercial functions performed by the subsidiaries compared to the comparators. Judgement of the Supreme Court Indeed, the grounds of ... Read more
Europe vs Hamamatsu, Dec 2017, European Court of Justice, Case No C-529-16

Europe vs Hamamatsu, Dec 2017, European Court of Justice, Case No C-529-16

The case concerns the effect of transfer pricing year-end adjustments on VAT – the relationship between transfer pricing and the valuation of goods for customs (VAT) purposes (Hamamatsu case C-529/16). Hamamatsu Photonics Deutschland GmbH (Hamamatsu) is a German subsidiary of the Japanese company Hamamatsu, and it acts as a distributor of optical devices purchased from the parent company. The transfer pricing policy of the group, which is covered by an Advanced Pricing Agreement (APA) with the German Tax Authorities, provides that the consideration paid by Hamamatsu to purchase the goods sold allows Hamamatsu Photonics a target profit. Hamamatsu accounted for an operating margin below the threshold agreed upon in the APA. The Japanese parent company consequently carried out a downward adjustment to allow the achievement of the target profitability by its German subsidiary. Hamamatsu filed a refund claim for the higher customs duties paid on the price that was declared to customs at the time of importation. Customs, at that ... Read more
Spain vs. Refrescos Envasados S.A., November 2009, Supreme Court, Case nr. 3582/2003

Spain vs. Refrescos Envasados S.A., November 2009, Supreme Court, Case nr. 3582/2003

Refrescos Envasados, S.A. – a Coca-Cola subsidiary in Spain – bought soft drink concentrate manufactured by Coca-Cola companies in Ireland and France. According to the tax authorities the prices paid for the concentrate were above market prices. Hence, an assessment was issued where the prices for the concentrate had been lowered resulting in additional taxable profits. In regards to the tax assessment, the tax authorities argued that they were not bound by the valuation carried out for customs purposes. Judgement of the Supreme Court According to the Supreme Court the pricing applied for the purpose of calculating the customs, is linked to the pricing applied for transfer prices purposes. The tax authorities can choose a transfer pricing method, but the method chosen must be used for both CIT and customs purposes. Click here for english translation Click here for other translation Spain Supreme Court 3582-2003 ... Read more