A recent ruling by the Tax Court in the case of ABD Limited v CSARS marked a notable shift in how South Africa approaches disputes over transfer pricing.
In today's rapidly changing global economy, Multi-National Enterprises (MNEs) face a significant challenge: navigating international tax and compliance rules, with transfer pricing standing out as a crucial issue. Whether they're launching new subsidiaries abroad or expanding existing ones, sticking to the "arm's length principle" is vital to avoid penalties for non-compliance.
Despite the well-established international guidelines laid out by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), many MNEs find themselves under frequent scrutiny through transfer pricing audits due to insufficient setups of the necessary tax and legal structures to support transactions between related entities.
A recent ruling by the Tax Court in the case of ABD Limited v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (14302) [2024] ZATC 2 (14 February 2024) marked a notable shift in how South Africa approaches disputes over transfer pricing. While the court ruled in favor of ABD Limited, the complex legal proceedings shed light on the intricate nature of such disputes.
At the heart of the matter was the licensing of Intellectual Property (IP) to subsidiaries, a common practice among MNEs in industries like telecommunications and software. The case involves the royalty payments made by the fourteen Opcos of ABD Limited during the periods 2009 to 2012. ABD Limited charged all subsidiaries the same royalty rate of 1% for the right to use its intellectual property based on expert advice supported by a benchmarking study.
South African Revenue Service (SARS), acting on expert advice contended ABD Limited should have charged a variable royalty rate based on the country and the year of assessment. The differences created by adopting this approach were significant, this is both on a country basis as well as on a year-by-year basis. SARS sought an order from the court in terms of section 129(2)(b) of the Tax Administration Act (TAA) that this additional assessment be adjusted to reflect the variable rates.
Despite initial challenges from SARS, the court's ruling validated ABD Limited's pricing strategy, which was a flat 1% royalty rate charged to all subsidiaries as the arm's length nature of the royalty rate was also supported by the royalty rate that ABD limited had charged to an unrelated entity (Cyprus) of 1%.
This case highlighted the importance of solid legal arguments backed by comprehensive evidence in the form of an annual transfer pricing documentation (i.e local file and master file) and the relevant comparability analysis performed to substantiate the arm's length nature of the taxpayer's cross border intercompany transactions.
To mitigate the risk of non-compliance and navigate the complexities of transfer pricing regulations, MNEs must assemble a skilled team of tax advisors, legal experts, and financial analysts. By proactively addressing transfer pricing obligations and implementing best practices, companies can protect their operations from potential audits and ensure alignment with regulatory requirements.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.