The Federal Tribunal rarely considers the issue of transfer pricing.
The context is particular in that, in the case in question, it concerns a mixed-economy company performing a task of public interest within the meaning of Art. 58 para. 3 LIFD and 24 para. 5 LHID. Did the company grant any appreciable monetary benefits to its shareholders?
The aforementioned topical legal provisions provide for three methods for determining net profit:
current market price
\ud83d\udc49 cost plus
current final selling price less a profit margin.
\u274c the law does not establish a hierarchy between methods; cost-plus is, however, most often used in practice (recommended by legal scholars), particularly for long-term relationships (see 2.3.4)
\u2705 The general provision referring to commercial use (Art. 58(1)(b), fifth indent, of the FIDL) is also applicable (consideration 2.3.5)
\u274c an interpretation in accordance with Article 9 of the OECD Model Tax Convention is not required; at most, it may be used as a subsidiary guide (recital 2.3.6)
\u2705 enter into the \u00abcurrent cost of production\u00bb:
1\ufe0f\u20e3 All operating expenses (see 2.3.8)
2 All financial expenses (see 2.3.8)
3\ufe0f\u20e3 and taxes (see 3.4.s ff)
\u274c but not charges unrelated to operations, nor extraordinary charges (see 3.4.6)
\u2705 A return on equity (and on all equity \u2013 para. 3.5.12) of 5.01% is an appropriate long-term return (para. 3.5.11)
\u2705 The mark-up (cost+) ranges from 5.0% to 10.0% depending on the sector (para. 3.6.1); in this case (energy production), it is 5.0% (para. 3.6.2)
A publication in the ATF is planned. The judgment is in German. It concerns a case from Grisons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Federal Tribunal, judgment 9C_37\/2023, of 11 June 2024<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Le tribunal F\u00e9d\u00e9ral se penche rarement sur la question des prix de transfert. Le contexte est particulier dans la mesure o\u00f9 il s’agit dans le cas d’esp\u00e8ce d’une entreprise d’\u00e9conomie mixte remplissant une t\u00e2che d’int\u00e9r\u00eat public au sens de l’art. 58 al. 3 LIFD et 24 al. 5 LHID. L’entreprise avait-elle accord\u00e9 des prestations appr\u00e9ciables […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-143","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n