Czech tax authorities have recently been focused on transfer pricing inspections. As a rule, the tax authorities typically assess additional tax by challenging the taxpayer’s functional and risk profile or by pointing out the existence of group relations that in turn require the group to compensate for a local entity’s losses. These approaches by the tax authorities have been challenged in recent cases before the regional courts in the Czech Republic.
In one of the cases, the tax administrator assessed the arm’s length character of prices at which a Czech manufacturer sold its products to its parent company, to be in turn distributed in foreign markets. For the period under review, the manufacturer incurred an operating loss.
The tax authorities concluded that, with respect to the company’s functional and risk profile of a contract manufacturer, the loss was to have been compensated by the parent company. The tax authorities prepared several comparative analyses that, however, showed methodological deficiencies—for instance, the exclusion of companies with a negative earnings before interest and tax (EBIT), and a failure to conduct a proper quantitative analysis. The tax authorities also disregarded any objections as to the specific conditions and economic circumstances (such as the weather) that had a major effect on the demand for the company’s products.
The regional court confirmed that the tax authorities erred in preparing the comparative analyses. In the situation when it was not possible to find a sufficient sample of comparable uncontrolled companies, it was—in the court’s opinion— appropriate to examine the other part of the transaction (i.e., to test the profitability of the parent company as the distributor).
As for the manufacturer’s functional and risk profile, the regional court concluded that the classification of entities as contract manufacturers or full-fledged manufacturer is only a model classification—what is important is the analysis of the entities’ actual behaviour, which must be taken as the most conclusive evidence supporting the actual risk distributions.
In another case, the tax authorities assessed additional tax for a company that supplied to a significant customer—an unrelated party—at a loss. In the tax authorities’ opinion, this was initiated on the group level, with the sale of the products by the Czech company at a loss allowed the group to supply other products to the same customer at a profit.
According to the tax authorities, the arrangement involved a kind of service provided by the Czech company to the group, for which it ought to have been compensated. The tax authorities then assessed additional tax on this fictitious revenue.
The regional court rejected the tax authorities’ position, and concluded that: (1) the tax authorities had failed to prove that the prices of products were set at the group level without any influence of the Czech company; and (2) the group as a whole profited from trading with the given customer.
Both judgments show that, in certain instances, it may be worthwhile for taxpayers to challenge an incorrect approach by the tax authorities to transfer pricing. Effective arguments can often be found in the procedural area—experience reveals that the tax authorities still frequently err in evidence proceedings and do not respect the distribution of the burden of proof as stipulated by law. Such deficiencies are usually enough for the court to find for the taxpayers.
For more information, contact a tax professional with KPMG’s Global Transfer Pricing Services practice in the Czech Republic:
Daniel Szmaragowski | +420 222 123 841 | firstname.lastname@example.org
Zdeněk Řehák | +420 222 123 531 | email@example.com
Jana Pytelková Svobodová | +420 222 123 483 | firstname.lastname@example.org
© 2017 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm. 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. 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.