Global

Details

  • Service: Tax, Global Compliance Management Services, International Tax
  • Type: Regulatory update
  • Date: 4/22/2014

Netherlands - Dutch state profit share and production license, activities 

April 22: The Dutch Supreme Court in an April 2014 decision provided guidance on the treatment of “tariff income” for Dutch state profit share purposes.

Although the decision is very factual, the Supreme Court confirmed an existing policy that: (1) third-party income for the use of platforms (i.e., “tariff income”) is not subject to the Dutch state profit share; and (2) the attributable costs—that need to be eliminated from the state profit share result—are equal to one-third of the tariff income.

Background

In the case decided by the Supreme Court:


  • BV held license interests in various blocks, together with other license holders.
  • The license holders concluded a unitization agreement for the production activities in these blocks.
  • BV held a 26% license interest in one of the blocks and a 36.8% interest in the co-owned platforms for the treatment of gas and a compression station based on the unitization agreement.
  • Accordingly, BV was charged expenses for the use of the platforms based on its 36.8% interest, but received remuneration for the use of the platforms based on its 26% license interest in one of the blocks.

On its Dutch state profit share return, BV excluded the remuneration from its taxable income, taking the position that the remuneration was for third-party use of the platforms. Also, BV claimed a deduction for the expenses charged in relation to its 26% interest in one of the blocks on the Dutch state profit share return.


The Dutch Tax and Customs Administration agreed to the exclusion of the remuneration, but disputed the deductibility of the expenses.

Supreme Court’s decision

According to the Supreme Court, if a production license holder is also the co-owner of a certain installation (such as a platform), that installation forms part of the business assets of this production license for Dutch state profit share purposes. However, income and costs related to third-party use of platforms must be excluded to determine the profit for state profit share purposes because such income and costs cannot be considered to relate to the production license business.


The Supreme Court also determined that the joint owners of an installation that forms part of the business assets of a production license cannot charge themselves a fee for the use of such an installation in their capacity as owners.


Finally, the Supreme Court concluded that with respect to a joint exploitation, charging expenses for the use of a platform can have real economic relevance if expenses charged for the use of a platform do not equal the share in the remuneration received for the use of that platform. However, this applies only when the amounts charged to the user exceed this user’s share in the remuneration received for the use of the platform. In the present case, the expenses charged to BV did not exceed its share in the remuneration, and thus, the deduction of the expenses charged to BV for use of the platforms was denied.


Read an April 2014 report prepared by the KPMG member firm in the Netherlands: Dutch State Profit Share – Recent Supreme Court decision on tariff income




©2014 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG International"), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.


The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG International.


KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent member firms. KPMG International provides no audit or other client services. Such services are provided solely by member firms in their respective geographic areas. KPMG International and its member firms are legally distinct and separate entities. They are not and nothing contained herein shall be construed to place these entities in the relationship of parents, subsidiaries, agents, partners, or joint venturers. No member firm has any authority (actual, apparent, implied or otherwise) to obligate or bind KPMG International or any member firm in any manner whatsoever.


The information contained in herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.


Direct comments, including requests for subscriptions, to us-kpmgwnt@kpmg.com.
For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at:

+ 1 202 533 4366

1801 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006.