Global

Details

  • Service: Tax, Global Transfer Pricing Services, Global Compliance Management Services
  • Type: Regulatory update
  • Date: 6/17/2013

Czech Republic - Burden of proof, cost-plus method 

June 17: The Supreme Administrative Court (Nejvyšší správní soud) addressed burden-of-proof issues when a taxpayer filed amended tax returns that revised the amounts of tax based on transfer pricing revisions, and when the cost-plus method can be applied to determine transfer prices between related parties.

The case identifying information is: No. 1 Afs 99/2012-52 (13 March 2013)

Background

The taxpayer filed two consecutive “additional” (amended) tax returns for 2007.


  • In the first additional tax return, the taxpayer increased its tax base and the amount of tax based on incorrectly determined transfer prices, and declared a loss on intra-group transactions.
  • Two years later (after a change of management), the taxpayer filed a second additional tax return, disclaiming the previous additional tax return and reducing the tax liability to the amount reported on the originally filed regular tax return.

On audit, the tax administrator, and subsequently the Regional Court of Justice in Hradec Králové, concluded that the taxpayer had failed to satisfy the burden of proof that the transfer prices in 2007 between the taxpayer and its parent company were at arm’s length.

Appellate court

The Supreme Administrative Court reiterated its position that, when the tax authority challenges the correct amount of transfer prices within a tax audit, the burden of proof is primarily on the tax administrator, and that the tax administrator must:


  • Ascertain the actual transfer price
  • Determine the “reference price” (i.e., the arm’s length price) and quantify the difference
  • Provide the taxpayer an opportunity (1) to express its position concerning the difference ascertained, and (2) to provide an explanation or to produce additional evidence

However, as the appellate court noted, the taxpayer itself revised or, more precisely, disclaimed its assertion in the first additional tax return. In a situation like this case, the Supreme Administrative Court found that the burden of proof is shifted to the taxpayer.


The Supreme Administrative Court also addressed the application of the cost-plus pricing method, and denied that the parent company could reflect its loss on the sale of final products in the cost of raw materials supplied.


The court explicitly allowed the use of the profit split method for distribution of profits between the parent and the subsidiary.


While the tax authority had refused to accept an expert opinion, the court concluded that the auditor’s opinion on the report of taxpayer relationships could not be considered to be evidence of an arm’s length price.

KPMG observation

The case shows that when two subsequent tax returns are filed, with the latter revising the former, the taxpayer can find itself rather at a disadvantage in terms of the burden of proof in transfer pricing proceedings.


Although the taxpayer’s position in terms of the burden of proof would not change regarding additional tax returns, it appears that the transfer of the burden of proof may, in certain cases, be applied as regards the first tax return.



For more information, contact a KPMG tax professional in the Czech Republic:


Lubomír Moučka

+420 222 123 514


Tomáš Drašar

+420 222 123 582




©2013 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.

 

Share this

Share this

Subscribe

Subscribe to receive the latest TaxNewsFlash email alerts (you must select the option for TaxNewsFlash)


Already a Subscriber? Login


Not a member? Subscribe now

Contact us