Until recently I was a Senior Transfer Pricing Specialist with HM Revenue & Customs. I have HMRC TP risk-assessing and case-working experience for most business sectors and transaction types and was a member of HMRC’s TP Governance Panel, which has the final say on most TP enquiries.
I have now decided to specialise in helping MNEs and their advisers prepare their “final” TP documentation for HMRC eyes.
You may think your TP Documentation is clear and complete; but HMRC may think otherwise. Many TP enquiries are opened or extended by HMRC because the full facts and circumstances of the business and its transfer pricing are absent from or not clearly presented in the documents provided. Ironically, on establishing the facts it often becomes clear to HMRC that the pricing is actually at arm’s length and the enquiry can be closed without adjustment. Unfortunately, considerable time and money will have been expended on the enquiry in the meantime.
Such enquiries can be avoided or cut short.
I can “sense-check” your TP documentation; issues that might otherwise trigger “TP risk” alarm bells within HMRC will be identified and can be corrected, clarified or expanded as required, before submission to HMRC, to better demonstrate your principled and objective approach to achieving the appropriate arm’s length pricing.
To find out how I can help you please use the “contact me” tab above or email me directly.
Gordon McLeman 08 December 2017
Source: smh.com.au 3 December 2017
“Exxon is more aggressive in minimising its tax than Chevron, which agreed to a settlement believed to be worth more than $1 billion this year, after being taken to court by the Australian Taxation Office”
“Energy giant ExxonMobil has not paid a cent in corporate income tax in Australia in at least two years, despite reaping more than $18 billion from the nation’s natural resources, according to three ofd the company’s workplace unions.
Tax campaigners accuse the company of cashing in on Australia’s soaring gas prices, but avoiding paying tax on its profits by sending much of its money to a network of offshore companies, some based in notorious tax havens.”
Source: HMRC Press Release, 1 December 2017
This consultation relates to the circumstances in which royalties and other types of payment made to connected persons not resident in the UK have a liability to income tax.
The UK government will introduce legislation in Finance Bill 2018-19 that broadens the circumstances in which certain payments made to non-UK residents have a liability to income tax.
These changes will have effect from April 2019. The consultation focuses on the design of that legislation.
The government welcomes comments from those who would be affected by these changes, including companies, advisors and representative bodies.
The consultation runs from 1 December 2017 to 23 February 2018.
In this recent transfer pricing case the Dutch Courts reduced the tax authority’s adjusted assessment of €188.3m down to €32.1m
The basic facts are:
- A Dutch parent company had provided services to foreign subsidiaries on a cost-plus basis.
- The parent received compensation when a business restructuring transferred its HQ and strategic functions to Switzerland.
- The Dutch Tax Authorities concluded that this compensation was not enough and that the parent continued to perform strategic functions for the group.
However, the Court ruled that:
- the parent had fulfilled its legal obligations by preparing thorough transfer pricing documentation.
- that the burden of proof was on the Dutch tax authorities and
- the tax authorities did not provide sufficient arguments to support their adjustment.
This outcome illustrates the importance of ‘preparing thorough transfer pricing documentation’ and, although it’s a Dutch example, the principle holds good across jurisdictions.
If you are interested in finding out how your TP documentation might fare if audited by HMRC then read on…… Read the rest of this entry »
“What patent attorneys and examiners need to know about the UK’s, and perhaps Europe’s, biggest infringement case for 12 years.”
Source: Article by Kilburn & Strode LLP via mondaq.com
“With the recent decision in Actavis v Eli Lilly Lord Neuberger has rethought, and rewritten, the rules of infringement.
This is an important decision, and it is useful to consider its impact not just on litigators, but prosecutors, drafters and even examiners.
Current best practice may not have changed too much, but every interaction with the patent office now carries just a little more weight, and the ‘how would a judge read this’ test needs to become second nature when formulating a response.
At the broader level, it feels like a welcome clarification or confirmation of a practical application of the infringement determination tests, despite the extra pressure on patent attorneys.
We will wait to see if this more ‘pragmatic’ approach develops not just in the UK but across Europe, and turns out to be as significant as it looks.”