Providing Evidence in Transfer Pricing Dispute
We are litigating a transfer pricing matter where the Finnish Tax Administration (”FTA”) has challenged the taxable result of a Finnish permanent establishment (”PE”) of a non-Finnish EU corporate entity (”Principal”) under the arm’s length principle. More specifically, based on the FTA and its conclusions, the case was to be assessed directly under the functional and comparability analysis, instead of the actual transactions and pricing applied therein as carried out between the PE and the Principal, and accordingly the FTA applied the transactional net margin method (”TNMM”) based on the OECD TPG.
Providing Evidence in Transfer Pricing Dispute
We are litigating a transfer pricing matter where the Finnish Tax Administration (”FTA”) has challenged the taxable result of a Finnish permanent establishment (”PE”) of a non-Finnish EU corporate entity (”Principal”) under the arm’s length principle. More specifically, based on the FTA and its conclusions, the case was to be assessed directly under the functional and comparability analysis, instead of the actual transactions and pricing applied therein as carried out between the PE and the Principal, and accordingly the FTA applied the transactional net margin method (”TNMM”) based on the OECD TPG.
Providing Evidence in Transfer Pricing Dispute
We are litigating a transfer pricing matter where the Finnish Tax Administration (”FTA”) has challenged the taxable result of a Finnish permanent establishment (”PE”) of a non-Finnish EU corporate entity (”Principal”) under the arm’s length principle. More specifically, based on the FTA and its conclusions, the case was to be assessed directly under the functional and comparability analysis, instead of the actual transactions and pricing applied therein as carried out between the PE and the Principal, and accordingly the FTA applied the transactional net margin method (”TNMM”) based on the OECD TPG.
The issue challenged by the taxpayer here is the procedural requirement, under e.g. the constitutional prerequisite of the due process of law, of providing required evidence by the FTA to prove an argument to the detriment of a taxpayer. In this case the FTA did not assess the transactions carried out but proceeded directly to a transfer pricing analysis arguing thereby, not on the facts of the case, but on the OECD TPG general methods and principals i.e., on more like abstract circumstantial evidence or standards.
In other words, in this case we are confronted with an assessment of facts vs. OECD TPG analysis, and the relative weight of the OECD TPG and its articles as a sole argument to the detriment of a taxpayer. Moreover, in this case we have challenged the basis with which the FTA has concluded the transactional profit in the case and specifically the enterprises chosen as the independent ones engaged in comparable transactions vs. the facts underlying.
The issue challenged by the taxpayer here is the procedural requirement, under e.g. the constitutional prerequisite of the due process of law, of providing required evidence by the FTA to prove an argument to the detriment of a taxpayer. In this case the FTA did not assess the transactions carried out but proceeded directly to a transfer pricing analysis arguing thereby, not on the facts of the case, but on the OECD TPG general methods and principals i.e., on more like abstract circumstantial evidence or standards.
In other words, in this case we are confronted with an assessment of facts vs. OECD TPG analysis, and the relative weight of the OECD TPG and its articles as a sole argument to the detriment of a taxpayer. Moreover, in this case we have challenged the basis with which the FTA has concluded the transactional profit in the case and specifically the enterprises chosen as the independent ones engaged in comparable transactions vs. the facts underlying.
The issue challenged by the taxpayer here is the procedural requirement, under e.g. the constitutional prerequisite of the due process of law, of providing required evidence by the FTA to prove an argument to the detriment of a taxpayer. In this case the FTA did not assess the transactions carried out but proceeded directly to a transfer pricing analysis arguing thereby, not on the facts of the case, but on the OECD TPG general methods and principals i.e., on more like abstract circumstantial evidence or standards.
In other words, in this case we are confronted with an assessment of facts vs. OECD TPG analysis, and the relative weight of the OECD TPG and its articles as a sole argument to the detriment of a taxpayer. Moreover, in this case we have challenged the basis with which the FTA has concluded the transactional profit in the case and specifically the enterprises chosen as the independent ones engaged in comparable transactions vs. the facts underlying.
Bernhardinkatu 5 A 5
00130 Helsinki, Finland
+358 40 523 2020
office@weckstromattorneys.com
© 2024 Weckström Attorneys Ltd.
Bernhardinkatu 5 A 5
00130 Helsinki, Finland
+358 40 523 2020
office@weckstromattorneys.com
© 2024 Weckström Attorneys Ltd.