Tag: Year end adjustment

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

§ 1.482-1(a)(3) Taxpayer’s use of section 482.

If necessary to reflect an arm’s length result, a controlled taxpayer may report on a timely filed U.S. income tax return (including extensions) the results of its controlled transactions based upon prices different from those actually charged. Except as provided in this paragraph, section 482 grants no other right to a controlled taxpayer to apply the provisions of section 482 at will or to compel the district director to apply such provisions. Therefore, no untimely or amended returns will be permitted to decrease taxable income based on allocations or other adjustments with respect to controlled transactions. See § 1.6662-6T(a)(2) or successor regulations ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.39

However, compensating adjustments are not recognised by most OECD member countries, on the grounds that the tax return should reflect the actual transactions. If compensating adjustments are permitted (or required) in the country of one associated enterprise but not permitted in the country of the other associated enterprise, double taxation may result because corresponding adjustment relief may not be available if no primary adjustment is made. The mutual agreement procedure is available to resolve difficulties presented by compensating adjustments, and competent authorities are encouraged to use their best efforts to resolve any double taxation which may arise from different country approaches to such year-end adjustments ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter III paragraph 3.71

Both the arm’s length price-setting and the arm’s length outcome-testing approaches, as well as combinations of these two approaches, are found among OECD member countries. The issue of double taxation may arise where a controlled transaction takes place between two associated enterprises where different approaches have been applied and lead to different outcomes, for instance because of a discrepancy between market expectations taken into account in the arm’s length price-setting approach and actual outcomes observed in the arm’s length outcome-testing approach. See paragraphs 4.38 and 4.39. Competent authorities are encouraged to use their best efforts to resolve any double taxation issues that may arise from different country approaches to year-end adjustments and that may be submitted to them under a mutual agreement procedure (Article 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention) ... Read more
Poland vs R.B.P. (P.) Sp. z o.o.., August 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 3830/18

Poland vs R.B.P. (P.) Sp. z o.o.., August 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 3830/18

The company is a producer of household chemicals and belongs to the R. B. (“the Group”), which is active in the manufacture and sale of consumer products in the home, health and hygiene products industry. The Company has entered into supply agreements for the goods it produces with Group companies. On the basis of the agreements, the Applicant sells goods produced by it to entities of the Group indicated by R. A. h. Companies and to R.B. [E.] B.V. The remuneration of the Polish company was determined based on a target margin – and if the profits were below or above the target margin, an invoice was issued subtracting or adding income to arrive at the target income. The tax authorities held that the quarterly “Transfer Pricing-adjustment” was not a transfer in regards of VAT. The company then filed a request for a individual interpretation (binding ruling), which was rejected by the authorities. A complaint was filed by the company ... Read more
France vs SA Compagnie Gervais Danone, June 2021, CAA, Case No. 19VE03151

France vs SA Compagnie Gervais Danone, June 2021, CAA, Case No. 19VE03151

SA Compagnie Gervais Danone was the subject of an tax audit at the end of which the tax authorities questioned, among other things, the deduction of a compensation payment of 88 million Turkish lira (39,148,346 euros) granted to the Turkish company Danone Tikvesli, in which the french company holds a minority stake. The tax authorities considered that the payment constituted an indirect transfer of profits abroad within the meaning of Article 57 of the General Tax Code and should be considered as distributed income within the meaning of Article 109(1) of the Code, subject to the withholding tax provided for in Article 119a of the Code, at the conventional rate of 15%. SA Compagnie Gervais Danone brought the tax assessment to the administrative court. In a decision of 9 July 2019 the Court discharged SA Compagnie Gervais Danone from the taxes in dispute. This decision was appealed to Administrative Court of Appeal by the tax authorities. Judgement of the Court ... Read more
Taiwan vs Weitian Technology Co. Ltd. December 2020, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 109 Pan Tzu No. 661

Taiwan vs Weitian Technology Co. Ltd. December 2020, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 109 Pan Tzu No. 661

Weitian Technology Co. Ltd (AKA ProLight Opto Technology Corp), a Taiwanese company active in the global LED industry, claimed that factors affecting market prices had not been fully considered while determining the prices of products sold to its subsidiary in Shanghai, and that this had caused major losses in the subsidiary. To account for these losses, at the end of 2015, a year end adjustment was made, which was reported as a tax deductible sales allowance in the tax returns. The tax authorities denied the deduction. An appeal was filed by the company with the Supreme Administrative Court in 2019. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The court dismissed the appeal. Deductions for the year end adjustment could not be allowed in this case for the following reasons: A year end adjustment is a mechanism provided to MNEs to achieve an arm’s-length result when the agreed terms and conditions pertaining to the price-relevant factors are changed. Documents must demonstrate the ... Read more
Poland vs K. sp. z o.o., January 2020, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 191/19 - Wyrok

Poland vs K. sp. z o.o., January 2020, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 191/19 – Wyrok

K. sp. z o.o. is a Polish company belonging to an international group. The main activity of K is local sale of goods purchased from a intra group supplier. K is best characterized as a limited risk distributor and as such should achieve an certain predetermined level of profitability as a result of its activities. In order to achieve the determined level of profitability, the group had established that, if the operating margin actually achieved by the distributor during a given period is less or more than the assumed level of profit, it will be adjusted. The year-end adjustment will not be directly related to the prices of goods purchased from the intra-group supplier and will be made after the end of each financial year. The Administrative Court decided that the year-end adjustment is not sufficiently linked to obtaining, maintaining or securing the company’s income. Hence the adjustment cannot be recognized as a deductible cost within the meaning of Article 15 ... Read more
Poland vs YEA s.a. z o.o., December 2019, Administrative Court, Case No SA/Po 800/19 - Wyrok

Poland vs YEA s.a. z o.o., December 2019, Administrative Court, Case No SA/Po 800/19 – Wyrok

A Polish subsidiary performed manufacturing on a limited risk basis (a so-called contract manufacturer) on behalf of the group parent and should be remunerated based on the functions performed. During the year, sales of products are made at constant registration prices based on the standard cost. It is only after the end of the year and the summary of costs and revenues of operations that the applicant is able to determine her own profit level to a fixed level at the level of operating profit. In view of the above, the parties apply a mechanism for determining profitability, including the correction of mutual settlements. The necessary adjustment of profitability to a certain level can take place only after an annual summary of costs and revenues of operations, with detailed data on the applicant’s actual profitability only available at the end of the year or even afterwards. Given that the operating result obtained by the applicant is subject to verification and ... Read more
Poland vs Non-Woven z o.o., July 2019, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 3433/18

Poland vs Non-Woven z o.o., July 2019, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 3433/18

The question in this case was whether or not year-end-adjustments/profit adjustments should be considered part of the market price for acquisition of raw materials used in the production of non-wovens products in the Polish company operating partially under a tax exempt zone. The Court of First Instance had come to the conclusion, that the payment of year end adjustments were part of the price for acquisition of raw materials and thus not tax deductible as related to tax exempt activities. This decision was appealed by the company. The Supreme Administrative Court considered the following : The appeal should be upheld. It should be noted that one of the assumptions of transfer prices is respect for the so-called market price rules. It consists in the fact that when transactions are concluded by related entities , the agreed conditions should be consistent with the conditions applied in comparable transactions by independent entities. The means of implementing this principle are the so-called profitability ... Read more
Italy vs Haier Europe Trading Srl , November 2018, Supreme Court, Case No 28337/2018

Italy vs Haier Europe Trading Srl , November 2018, Supreme Court, Case No 28337/2018

Haier Europe Trading Srl, an Italien subsidiary of the Chinese Haier group (active within home appliances and consumer electronics), challenged an assessment for FY 2007, with which the tax authorities had recovered for taxation the difference with respect to the normal value in relation to transactions of goods with other companies of the group not resident in Italy. An appeal was filed by Haier with the Tax commission which was considered well-founded. The tax authorities then filed an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Court found that the appeal in regards of transfer pricing was well founded and set aside the Judgement of the Tax Commission. Excerpt “3.2 Now, in the case at hand, the CTR affirms that “in the case at hand, as demonstrated, the prices paid are correct and in line with (i.e. lower than) those of the domestic market”. This ruling, moreover, is followed by the observation that the payment ... 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
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
Sweden vs VSM Group AB, July 2017, Administrative Court of Appeal, Case No 2038–2041-15

Sweden vs VSM Group AB, July 2017, Administrative Court of Appeal, Case No 2038–2041-15

An agreement between a Swedish company, VSM Group AB, and an American distributor, VSM Sewing Inc, stated that the distributor would receive compensation corresponding to an operating margin of three percent. Benchmark studies showed that the agreed compensation was arm’s length. Each year, the company made a year end adjustment to ensure that the pricing was arm’s length. In cases where the outcome was outside the interquartile range, additional invoicing took place so that the operating margin was adjusted to the agreed level. But no additional invoicing took place where the operating margin deviated from what was agreed but was within the interquartile range. The company argued that the pricing was correct as long as the operating margin was within the interquartile range. The company also argued that the agreement between the parties had a different content than the written agreement because the parties consistently applied an understanding of the arrangement that deviated from the written content. The Court of ... Read more

TPG2017 Chapter III paragraph 3.71

Both the arm’s length price-setting and the arm’s length outcome-testing approaches, as well as combinations of these two approaches, are found among OECD member countries. The issue of double taxation may arise where a controlled transaction takes place between two associated enterprises where different approaches have been applied and lead to different outcomes, for instance because of a discrepancy between market expectations taken into account in the arm’s length price-setting approach and actual outcomes observed in the arm’s length outcome-testing approach. See paragraphs 4.38 and 4.39. Competent authorities are encouraged to use their best efforts to resolve any double taxation issues that may arise from different country approaches to year-end adjustments and that may be submitted to them under a mutual agreement procedure (Article 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention) ... Read more
Germany vs "Spedition Gmbh", December 2012, Federal Tax Court 11.10.2012, I R 75/11

Germany vs “Spedition Gmbh”, December 2012, Federal Tax Court 11.10.2012, I R 75/11

Spedition Gmbh entered a written agreement – at year-end – to pay management fees to its Dutch parent for services received during the year. The legal question was the relationship between arm’s-length principle as included in double tax treaties and the norms for income assessments in German tax law. The assessment of the tax office claiming a hidden distribution of profits because of the “retrospective” effect of the written agreement, was rejected by the Court. According to the Court the double tax treaty provisions bases the arm’s length standard on amount, rather than on the reason for, or documentation, of a transaction. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation Germany-vs-Corp-October-2012-BUNDESFINANZHOF-Urteil-IR-75-11- ... Read more
Italy vs Take Two Interactive Italia s.r.l., July 2012, Supreme Court, no 11949/2012

Italy vs Take Two Interactive Italia s.r.l., July 2012, Supreme Court, no 11949/2012

In this case the Italien company, T. S.r.l. is entirely controlled by H. S.A., registered in Switzerland, and is part of the American multinational group T., being its only branch in Italy for the exclusive marketing of its software products (games for personal computers, play station, etc.). T. S.r.l. imports these products through T. Ltd (which is also part of the same multinational group and controlled by the same parent company), which is registered in the United Kingdom and is the sole supplier of the products that are marketed by the Italian branch. On 31st October 2004 (the last day of the financial year), T. S.r.l. posted an invoice that the British company T. Ltd had issued on that date for £ 947,456. This accounts document referred to “Price adjustment to product sold during FY 2003/2004”, and charges the Italian company with adjustment increases to previously applied prices relative to certain software products the company had purchased during the aforesaid ... Read more

Norway vs VingCard Elsafe AS, June 2012, Borgarting lagmannsrett, Case No UTV-2012-1191

VingCard / Elsafe had entered into a distribution agreement with related party AAH Inc. The agreement governed the internal price setting so that AAH Inc was guaranteed an annual net margin of between 1% and 5%. The interval was later changed to 1.1% – 2.9% in line with the conclusions in the internal price study. In question was the use of the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) method in connection with pricing. Judgement of the Court The court pointed out that the US distributor company was left with a limited profit which reflected the company’s role in the transaction, and that it should be possible for group companies to enter into such an a agreement. A transfer pricing model which grants guaranteed return to a foreign distributor (return on sales method with a range) as well as true-up payments including year-end adjustments of the income of the distributor, could be accepted from a Norwegian tax perspective. Click here for translation ... Read more
Taiwan vs Cadence Taiwan, January 2012, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 1 of 101

Taiwan vs Cadence Taiwan, January 2012, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 1 of 101

Cadence is a US group active in the business of electronic design automation. Cadence Taiwan provided R&D services to Cadence US. In 2003, based on a transfer pricing study, Cadence US concluded that the service fees that it had paid to Cadence Taiwan in 2002 were too high and therefore instructed Cadence Taiwan to book a significant sales allowance amount in it’s 2003 and 2004 accounts. A debit note was send to Cadence Taiwan and a tax deduction was claimed. Cadence brought the case to court The Supreme Administrative court rejected Cadence’s appeal. The service agreement between Cadence US and Cadence Taiwan did not contain any provision for a retroactive adjustment of the service fees. The debit notes from Cadence US were not signed off by Cadence Taiwan to acknowledge its agreement to the adjustments. Therefore, the subsequent sales allowances booked by Cadence Taiwan were purely for the purpose of allocating profits without any economic substance, and thus could not ... Read more
Latvia vs "Snickers Production Latvia", April 2011, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No A42435608 SKA-134/2011

Latvia vs “Snickers Production Latvia”, April 2011, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No A42435608 SKA-134/2011

This case concerns a transfer pricing dispute between the Latvian tax authorities (SRS) and a Latvian manufacturing company, “Snickers Production Latvia”, related to a credit notes issued to Snickers Europe AB, reducing its taxable profits. For the purpose of establishing the pricing of controlled transactions the company had used the TNMM method and performed a benchmark analysis based on a 2004 version of AMADEUS. To verify the benchmark analysis the tax authorities had used a 2007 version of AMADEUS and concluded that many of the selected comparables did not meet the qualitative criteria. The benchmark was adjusted and an assessment issued were the reduction of profits resulting from the credit note was denied. An appeal was filed by the company with the Court. The appeal was dismissed by judgment of the Administrative District Court of 30 September 2009 and later by judgment of the Administrative Regional Court of 8 September 2010. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Supreme Court ... Read more