Sweden vs Absolut Company AB, June 2019, Supreme Administrative Court, Case no 1913-18

Posted on | By Courts of Sweden | No comments
Category: Benchmark, Range and Median, Burden of Proof, Services and Fees, Transfer Pricing Methods | Tag: , , , , ,
« | »

The Absolut Company AB had been issued an assessment of additional taxable income of SEK 247 mio. The assessment was based on the position that (1) The Absolut Company AB had been selling below the arm’s length price to an US group company – The Absolut Spirit Company Inc. (ASCI), and (2) that acquired distribution services from ASCI that had been priced above the arm’s length price.

In 2018 the Swedish Administrative Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the tax administration.

The Swedish Supreme Administrative Court has now ruled in favor of The Absolute Company AB.

According to the Supreme Administrative Court the Swedish Tax Agency did not fulfill the burden of proof.

The Supreme Administrative Court further states that the full range of results in the benchmark study could be applied and that a multiple year analysis of the tested party data can be used to support an arm’s length result.

Click here for translation

Sweden vs Absolut AB 2019

Related Guidelines

TPG2022 Chapter II Annex I paragraph 1[See Chapter II, Part III, Section B of these Guidelines for general guidance on the application of the transactional net margin method. The assumptions about arm’s length arrangements in the following examples are intended for illustrative purposes only and should not be taken as prescribing adjustments and arm’s length arrangements...
TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 2486. Zhu is a company engaged in software development consulting. In the past Zhu has developed software supporting ATM transactions for client Bank A. In the process of doing so, Zhu created and retained an interest in proprietary copyrighted software code that is potentially suitable for use by other similarly...
TPG2022 Chapter VIII Annex example 1a8. The facts are the same as Example 1. In accordance with the guidance in paragraph 8.27, an alternative way to achieve the identical result under Example 1 is through the use of a two-step process as set out below 9. Step 1 (contributions measured at cost): Company A should...
TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 2797. Company A is the Parent of an MNE group with operations in country X. Company A owns patents, trademarks and know-how with regard to several products produced and sold by the MNE group. Company B is a wholly owned subsidiary of Company A. All of Company B’s operations are...
TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 926. The facts in this example are the same as in Example 8, except as follows: Under the contract between Primair and Company S, Company S is now obligated to develop and execute the marketing plan for country Y without detailed control of specific elements of the plan by Primair....
TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 716. Primero is the parent company of an MNE group engaged in the pharmaceutical business and does business in country M. Primero develops patents and other intangibles relating to Product X and registers those patents in countries around the world. 17. Primero retains its wholly owned country N subsidiary, Company...
TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 1864. Primarni is organised in and conducts business in country A. Company S is an associated enterprise of Primarni. Company S is organised in and does business in country B. Primarni develops a patented invention and manufacturing know-how related to Product X. It obtains valid patents in all countries relevant...
TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 1446. Shuyona is the parent company of an MNE group. Shuyona is organised in and operates in country X. The Shuyona group is involved in the production and sale of consumer goods. In order to maintain and, if possible, improve its market position, ongoing research is carried out by the...
TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 1030. The facts in this example are the same as in Example 9, except that the market development functions undertaken by Company S in this Example 10 are far more extensive than those undertaken by Company S in Example 9. 31. Where the marketer/distributor actually bears the costs and assumes...
TPG2022 Chapter VIII Annex example 521. The facts are the same as in Example 4 except that the functional analysis indicates Company A has no capacity to make decisions to take on or decline the risk-bearing opportunity represented by its participation in the CCA, or to make decisions on whether and how to respond to...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *