The administrative court issued a decision regarding a transfer pricing issue—specifically concerning an underpriced controlled transaction that was tested through the application of the transactional net margin method (TNMM).
The Administrative Court (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa—CAAD) issued a decision in case n.º 511/2018-T (10 October 2019) concerning the sale of raw materials and goods by a company to related parties.
Following the analysis of the transfer pricing documentation, the tax authority issued a tax audit report and assessed additional tax with reference to the sale of footwear-related raw materials and goods from Company A (as seller) to Company C and Company D (as buyers)—these are the “controlled transactions”—and finding the non-compliance of these transactions with the arm’s length principle. Thus, an adjustment was made to Company A´s taxable income.
In this regard:
The Portuguese tax authority conducted an economic analysis through the application of the TNMM, using exclusively internal comparables, and determined the “profit margins” (sales price less cost price) recorded in the transactions with independent third parties, by category (raw materials and goods). Moreover, the tax authority made use of the information disclosed by Company A, disregarding the transactions related to stock-sales (“leftovers” from collections), faulty product sales, and non-profit samples because these were not standard reference transactions. Given the lack of information, the tax authority was not able to allocate the selling, general, and administrative expenses to each category of transactions being tested, with the analysis being performed on a gross margin level.
The tax authority emphasized that, when internal comparables exist, these would be preferable because such transactions would mostly better reflect the functions performed and risks assumed by a taxpayer. Additionally, testing the overall profitability would need to be limited to those situations where: (1) transactions have not been established with unrelated parties or the characteristics, functions, and risks underlying those demonstrate that the transactions are not comparable and not possible of being adjusted: and (2) total (or almost total) income or costs reflected in the financial statements are deemed with related parties and the tested party assumes routine functions and risks within the business model established with the counterpart(s).
The Portuguese tax authority, thus, concluded that there was non-compliance of the arm’s length principle, and adjusted Company A’s transfer prices and, consequently, its taxable income.
A request for judicial review of the findings of the tax authority and the resulting tax assessment was made of the court, and the court (CAAD) issued its judgment in favor of the tax authority on the ground that even though the tax authority’s analysis showed some weaknesses, it was the most appropriate methodology to test the transactions under analysis.
The Portuguese tax authority recently has adopted what appears to be a heightened awareness regarding transfer pricing matters, and thus has moved to improve its analysis and arguments in transfer pricing disputes.
Tax professionals have noted that it may be prudent for transfer pricing analyses not to be performed solely as a means of complying with a documentation requirement. With its many transfer pricing audits and disputes, the Portuguese tax authority has been gaining knowledge, and therefore, a taxpayer’s economic analyses and documentation must be as strong, robust, and bullet-proof as possible because this information is the first line of defense for taxpayers.
For more information, contact a tax professional with KPMG’s Global Transfer Pricing Services group in Portugal:
Susana Pinto | +351 2124 87391 | firstname.lastname@example.org
Luísa Silva | +351 2124 87420 | email@example.com
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.