Dom
HØJESTERETS DOM
afsagt torsdag den 9. januar 2025
Sag BS-49398/2023-HJR og BS-47473/2023-HJR
(2. afdeling)
Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S
(advokat Nikolaj Bjørnholm)
mod
Skatteministeriet
(advokat Steffen Sværke)
I tidligere instans er afsagt dom af Østre Landsrets 18. afdeling den 29. august 2023 (B-0956-16 og BS-52532/2019-OLR).
I pådømmelsen har deltaget fem dommere: Poul Dahl Jensen, Michael Rekling, Jens Kruse Mikkelsen, Ole Hasselgaard og Julie Arnth Jørgensen.
Påstande
Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S, har gentaget sin påstand om frifindelse og om, at selskabets skattepligtige indkomst i indkomståret 2007 nedsættes med 7.027.853 kr.
Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S har subsidiært nedlagt påstand om, at ansættelsen af selskabets skattepligtige indkomst for indkomstårene 2005-2011 for så vidt angår medar-bejderindlån og -udlån hjemvises til fornyet behandling ved Skattestyrelsen.
Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S har yderligere nedlagt påstand om, at indstævnte, Skatteministe-riet, skal tilbagebetale 1.000.000 kr., som Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S har betalt til opfyldelse af landsrettens omkostningsafgørelse, med procesrente fra den 5. september 2023.
2
Skatteministeriet har påstået stadfæstelse af landsrettens dom og har over for Appellant A/S', tidligere Sagsøgte A/S betalingspåstand påstået frifindelse.
Supplerende sagsfremstilling
Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S har fremlagt transfer pricing-dokumentation vedrørende avancetil-lægget (mark-up) på 30 % nævnt i pkt. 6 i Virksomhed 1 Organisations Inter-national Assignment Agreement” (IAA-aftalen) for de omhandlede indkomstår. Dokumentationen er bortset fra datagrundlaget i det væsentlige enslydende. Af Appellant A/S', tidligere Sagsøgte A/S transfer pricing-dokumentation for 2006 vedrørende IAA-aftalen fremgår bl.a.:
“III. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
A. Cross Border Personnel
Virksomhed 1 clients require information technology and business solu-tions that are not limited by geographic boundaries. Therefore, the abil-ity to deliver services to existing and prospective clients on a world-wide basis is critical to the business success of all Virksomhed 1 entities. The proposals presented to prospective clients in any country typically stress Virksomhed 1's ability to assemble a project team in any country or any client location. A typical cross border engagement involves one or more functional and industry experts and often requires personnel from more than one Virksomhed 1 entity. To facilitate this exchange of per-sonnel, each Virksomhed 1 entity has executed the International Assign-ment Agreement.
Personnel who work on an engagement in another country are com-monly referred to as "Cross Border Resources." Cross Border Resources are sent to work on an engagement in another country on a temporary, short term basis and return to their sending or "Home" country after their work is completed. Throughout this report, the term "Home Coun-try" refers to the country that supplies the Cross Border Personnel. Sim-ilarly, the term "Host Country" refers to the country that borrows Cross Border Personnel. Use of Cross Border Resources enables the Virksomhed 1 organization to balance swings in supply and demand in the different Virksomhed 1 entities and has the following additional benefits:
•The cross-border resource can augment local staff with required skills and/or experience on a client project;
•A core team may work for a multinational client in more than one country; and
•Occasionally, a person may move cross border to enhance his or her skills or receive on-the-job training.
3
Regardless of the specific needs of the Host Country, consulting person-nel are rarely sent out of their Home Country if they are needed on a lo-cal project. Indeed, typically, personnel are sent out on cross border as-signments only if there is no urgent need for their work in their Home Country.
The starting point for establishing an arm's length price for an inter-company transaction is the analysis of functions performed and risks incurred by each of the affiliated entities involved in a transaction. As will be discussed in more detail below, the Home Country that pro-vides the Cross Border Resource to the Host Country acts as supplier of staff. The Host Country contracts with the client and generally assumes all the risks associated with the engagement. It is therefore appropriate that the Home Country, which is responsible only for providing compe-tent staff, receives sufficient revenue to pay the employee's direct and indirect compensation and to recover a margin for the provision of staff to the Host Country. Any other engagement costs incurred by the bor-rowed employee are borne by the Host Country.
Functions of the Home and Host Countries
The Host Country typically carries out most of the job functions on a client engagement. The Host Country senior executive (or a senior exec-utive group) identifies a prospective client, meets with and solicits work from the client, identifies the skills and resources required to de-liver the work, enters into the contract with the client and delivers the work. The Home Country has no responsibilities specific to a particular engagement. In fact, an employee on a cross border engagement works under the supervision of the senior executive in charge of that engagement (i.e., a Host Country senior executive). The Home Country functions are limited to HR functions such as recruiting, training, set-ting long-term career paths, compensation and benefits.
In some cases, the Home Country may play a limited role in the selec-tion of the cross border resource. However, the Host Country senior ex-ecutive has the right to "veto" that selection if he or she feels that the re-source selected by the Home Country does not meet the qualifications needed for the client engagement…
…
Risks Assumed
The distribution of risk between the Host Country and the Home Coun-try is weighted heavily toward the Host Country. The Host Country is the contracting entity with the third-party clients and incurs the general
4
business risk, warranty risk and financial risks on client engagements. The risk assumed by the Home Country is primarily opportunity cost. For example, if there were an increase in the local market demand, the Home Country may not have enough resources if the resources are al-ready committed abroad. This creates an opportunity cost for the Home Country. Of course, this cost is significantly reduced in that the Home Country, in turn, could borrow resources from other Virksomhed 1 entities. In such cases, the Home Country would incur minimal opportunity costs if alternative resources were available and if the transfer prices for imported personnel were set globally and applied consistently for all Virksomhed 1 entities. It should be noted, however, that the Home Country does not typically lend the resources that it needs for its own (local) en-gagements to an affiliated entity. Cross Border Personnel are always drawn from the pool of personnel that are "available," in the sense that they are not urgently needed for an engagement in their Home Coun-try.
In addition to opportunity cost, the Home Country also risks losing re-sources to turnover when staffing them on cross-border engagements. For example, occasionally, due to demanding travel requirements or dissatisfaction with a specific cross-border job, resources will leave the company. Dissatisfaction can be caused by factors such as different management styles between the Home and the Host Country, cultural differences, a lengthy cross border assignment, and a perceived loss of career path. When the Home Country loses a resource, it loses the time and money spent developing that individual.
Following is a list of core risks that are assumed by the Host and Home countries.
…
B. Pricing Methods
The services performed by one Virksomhed 1 entity for another Virksomhed 1 entity pursuant to the International Assignment Agreement are intra-group services that must be compensated at arm's length. Without the ability to borrow resources from other Virksomhed 1 entities, the Host Country entity would have to hire third party contractors to augment their local resources on certain engagements. Moreover, the entities that supply the personnel (Home Countries) are in the business of providing consulting services to third parties using the same personnel that may be loaned to other Virksomhed 1 entities on cross border assignments. Therefore, the provision of personnel to the Host Country entity may not be charged at cost but must include a profit element. As noted
5
above, transfer pricing methods that are generally appropriate for inter-company services are the comparable uncontrolled price (CUP) method and the cost plus method.
Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) Method
A CUP analysis would set the prices charged for services provided among Virksomhed 1 entities based on the prices charged by Virksomhed 1 en-tities to unrelated parties. The CUP method, however, requires substan-tial economic comparability, particularly with respect to functions and risks. To be comparable under the CUP method, the controlled and un-controlled transactions must be either identical or fundamentally simi-lar. Therefore, if Virksomhed 1 provided consulting services to unrelated parties that were sufficiently comparable to the functions performed and risks assumed by the Home Country (in a cross border transfer set-ting), the prices charged in these transactions with unrelated parties would provide a CUP.
Of course, Virksomhed 1 entities are in the business of providing consulting services to third parties. The service revenues received by the Virksomhed 1 entities represent the amount that unrelated clients are willing to pay for their services. However, in order to use revenues earned on third-party projects as a basis for pricing between Virksomhed 1 entities, the comparability of the services provided and the circumstances of the transactions between Virksomhed 1 entities and third parties must be estab-lished. That is, the functions performed by an Virksomhed 1 affiliate on a typical client engagement must be compared with the functions per-formed by the Home Country on a typical cross-border engagement. While the two transactions appear to be comparable from a narrow ser-vice (or "product") perspective, the transactions are not comparable from a functional and risk viewpoint. Thus, while the type of consulting services provided to third-party clients on domestic (Home Country) engagements are generally the same as those provided by the Host Country to its client on an engagement that requires the use of cross-border resources, the intracompany services provided to the Host Country by the Home Country are not the same. Specifically, as shown in the functional and risk analyses section presented above, the Home Country typically does not perform project management or client ser-vice functions. More specifically, the Home Country does not provide any consulting services to the Host Country. Rather, it provides con-sulting personnel who will then work under the direction of the Host Country executives (typically) as part of a larger team on a client en-gagement. Also, the Home Country does not bear any significant risk with respect to the engagement. Therefore, the revenues earned on a typical client project are too high in relation to the functions performed
6
and risks assumed by the Home Country. Hence, an alternative transfer pricing method, the cost plus method, needs to be considered.
Cost Plus Analysis
Since neither internal nor external comparable uncontrolled prices are available for cross-border services among Virksomhed 1 entities, bench-mark prices are best determined by identifying the costs of services and applying an arm's length markup to those costs. The arm's length markup is determined by examining the markups earned by independ-ent companies performing functions comparable to those performed by the Home Country with respect to a cross-border engagement.
Search for Comparables
In order to identify the return to which an Virksomhed 1 Affiliate is entitled for providing personnel to Virksomhed 1 entities in other countries, an analysis of the markups and margins earned by independent compa-nies performing functions similar to those of Virksomhed 1 entities was performed. Searches were performed in three commercial databases containing financial and operating information on a large number of publicly and privately held companies around the world: S&P Com-pustat, Thomson BankerOne, and Bureau Van Dijk's Amadeus. The search process focused on companies that provided information tech-nology services including companies classified in Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) group 737 (Computer and Data Processing Ser-vices), as well as companies in SIC codes 8742 (Management Consulting Services) and SIC code 8748 (Business Consulting Services, not else-where classified).
The initial search identified set of 1,170 potential comparable companies worldwide. A financial review of the companies in this initial set sub-stantially reduced the number of potential comparables. The financial rejection criteria included, but were not limited to:
•a history of consecutive operating losses as evidenced by the company's last three years of financial data;
•less than three years of financial data;
•inventory to sales ratio greater than 10%.
The remaining potential comparable companies were again reduced af-ter a review of the business description of each one of the companies. Since the analysis focused on the markup earned by IT service provid-ers, companies were excluded if they derived significant revenue from software sales or licensing or were engaged in the re-sale of computer hardware or software as an important component of their business. In
7
addition, as Virksomhed 1 personnel involved in cross border assignments provide a wide range of technical and professional services, companies that focused narrowly on specific areas of technology consulting (e.g., Web design) were excluded. Moreover, since the Host Country will have access to all intellectual property that it needs for its client engage-ments, companies were excluded if they had significant intellectual property (IP) as indicated in their SEC or other public fillings.
After a thorough review of the functions performed by the remaining companies, a set of 57 comparable companies was selected. These com-panies provide a good basis for comparison with the functions per-formed by the Home Country with respect to a cross-border assign-ment. While each of the comparable companies bears a normal level of business risks, these risks do not appear to be in excess of the business risks incurred by the Virksomhed 1 entities in their role as a Home Country in a cross border transaction. As discussed in the functional and risk analysis, although the Home Country bears no risk of legal liability with respect to the cross-border engagement, some business risk is borne by the Home Country. For example, the Home Country would bear the costs of redeploying the personnel if a cross border job is termi-nated earlier than expected and the borrowed resources are sent back by Host Country.
A summary description of each of the comparable companies selected is presented in Exhibit 2. Selected financial data for the comparable com-panies are provided in Exhibit 3.
Virksomhed 1 Data
Information regarding cross border transfers among Virksomhed 1 entities was collected. Because Virksomhed 1's cross border transfer pricing policy is intended to be applied on a consistent worldwide basis, it would be impractical to analyze the financial information of each and every Virksomhed 1 entity individually and apply a specific transfer price for each country. Instead financial data for operating entities in sixteen countries that account for the bulk (over 70%) of Cross Border transactions were obtained and analyzed. As it is not possible to isolate the costs and rev-enues associated solely with cross border services, entity-wide income statements were used.
Summary Income Statements for the sixteen selected Virksomhed 1 Entities are presented in Exhibit 5. For comparative purposes, the following fi-nancial ratios were calculated from these GAAP financial statements:
• Gross profit as a percent of cost of services; and
8
• Operating expenses (including depreciation expenses) as a
percent of net revenues.
Adjustments to Comparable Data
Before the profitability ratios of the comparable companies could be compared to those of the sixteen Virksomhed 1 Entities, additional compa-rability adjustments were required to account for remaining differences between the functions performed by the Virksomhed 1 Entities and the comparable companies. Each of the comparable companies under re-view incurs a different level of operating expenses (expressed as a per-centage of revenues or sales). Because the level of operating expenses for any particular company generally provides a good indication of the magnitude of that company's marketing and administrative activities, differences in operating expense levels generally reflect differences in functions performed. Moreover, some of the comparable companies in-clude some of the expenses that would normally be considered "selling, general, and administrative expenses" in the cost of services. Without appropriate adjustment, the cost plus margin of such companies is sub-stantially understated and cannot be compared with companies, such as Virksomhed 1, that report direct costs (cost of goods/services) and overhead (selling, general, and administrative) expenses on a separate line. There-fore, adjustments were made to compensate for differences in levels of operating expenses between Virksomhed 1 entities and the comparable companies.
The adjustments were made as follows: The operating expenses-to-reve-nues ratios of each of the selected Virksomhed 1 entities were averaged over the last three fiscal years (FY2004 - FY2006). This three-year aver-age ratio was then compared to the operating expenses-to-revenue av-erage ratios of each of the comparable companies. For example, the three-year average operating expenses to revenues ratio of Virksomhed 1 Australia was 16%, while the same ratio for Ciber, Inc. was 23%. The higher level of operating expenses implies that Ciber earns a higher gross margin than Virksomhed 1 Australia because it performs more func-tions, or performs the same number of functions but with greater inten-sity than Virksomhed 1. In order to estimate the gross margin that would be earned by Ciber if its level of operating expenses were the same as Virksomhed 1 Australia, the percentage difference in their operating expenses is subtracted from the reported gross margin of Ciber. That is, seven percentage points is subtracted from Ciber's gross margin to make it functionally more comparable with Virksomhed 1 Australia. The adjusted gross margin is then used to calculate an adjusted cost plus markup, or markup over direct costs using the following formula:
9
Cost Plus Markup = (Adjusted Gross Margin/Cost of Services)
"Cost of Services" includes payroll costs and all employee benefits, so-cial insurance costs, related taxes, and direct overhead. For example, based on the cost plus method of pricing, if a company's cost of services equal $100, and these costs are marked up by 25%, the company's reve-nue will be $125, and the gross margin will be $25.
The analysis comparing the comparable company results and the oper-ating results of the sixteen selected Virksomhed 1 Entities is attached as Ex-hibit 6. As an example, a summary of the analysis using Virksomhed 1 Aus-tralia operating results to determine the adjusted cost plus markups for the comparable companies is shown in the following table.
…
As can be observed, the adjusted cost plus markups for the comparable companies ranged from -9% to 67% over the three year period equiva-lent to the Virksomhed 1 Australia fiscal years 2004 through 2006. This range, however, is too broad to be used as the basis for transfer pricing. One method of narrowing the range is to focus on the interquartile range of the markups obtained from the comparables. The interquartile range is defined as the range of values from the 25th to the 75th percen-tile (i.e., the middle 50 percent of the range). The interquartile range of adjusted cost plus markups for the three years is 24% to 39%.
As shown in the following table (Adjusted Cost Plus Markup Interquar-tile Range), the adjustment and calculation process described above for Virksomhed 1 Australia was also applied to all sixteen Virksomhed 1 entities selected for this analysis…
…
The summary table above also includes the computation of the inter-quartile range for the ranges of data obtained for individual countries. The objective of this exercise is to obtain a range which eliminates ex-treme results but, at the same time, includes at least one data point from the applicable range of each of the sixteen entities. The applicable range is cost plus 24% to 44%, which spans from the lower end of 25th percen-tile range to the upper end of the 75th percentile range.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the functions performed and risks borne by the Home and Host Countries, the arm's length markup on cost of services charged by the Home Countries for employees lent to the Host Countries should be in the range of 24% to 44%. The 30% markup charged by the Virksomhed 1
10
Home Countries for Cross Border Resources was well within this arm's length range. The computation of the range is based on a three-year av-erage ratio of adjusted gross profit to cost of services of comparable companies. Adjustments were made for the differences in the ratio of selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses to net sales ratios of comparable companies and Virksomhed 1.”
I 2006 indgik Virksomhed G.m.b.H og Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S en li-censaftale (“Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S – Virksomhed G.m.b.H Intellectual Property License Agree-ment”). Det fremgår af licensaftalen bl.a.:
“WHEREAS:
(A) The Licensee and Licensor are members of Koncern;
(B) The Licensor is the legal and/or beneficial owner of the Licensed IPR (as defined below) and primarily responsible for the development, enhancement and protection of the Intellectual Property;
(C) Licensor has borne the cost of developing or acquiring Intellectual Property and has agreed, pursuant to the IP Services Agreements with the Entities, including the Licensee, to bear the future costs incurred by the Entities, including the Licensee, of development and/or improvement of the Intellectual Property;
…
THEREFORE THE PARTIES AGREE as follows
1. DEFINITIONS
...
1.1.5. “Virksomhed G.m.b.H IPR” means all Intellectual Property owned by
the Licensor from time to time including, but not limited to, the Trademarks and Patents and all other Intellectual Property developed or acquired by the Licensor after the Effective Date;
…
1.1.13. “Effective Date” Means:
a) 1 January 2001 in respect of any rights and obligations relating to the Brand and any Intellectual Property attaching thereto; and
b) 1 June 2001 in respect of all other aspects of this Agreement;
11
...
1.1.18. “Intellectual Property” means all right, title and interest
in and to patents (including supplementary protection certificates and divisionals), trademarks, service marks, registered designs, utility models, design rights, domain names and other Internet keywords, get-up or trade dress, logos, algorithms, frameworks, methods, models, solutions, processes, procedures, work-arounds, technology, tools, copyright (including copyright in computer software and databases), works of authorship, database rights, semi-conductor topography rights, inventions, trade secrets and other confidential information, know-how, methodologies, internal management information systems, business or trade names, any and all associated documentation (including training materials, books, booklets, pam-phlets, subject files and reference matter), personality rights, rights under any unfair competition, privacy or publicity rights laws and all other intellectual and industrial property and rights of a similar or corres-ponding nature in any part of the world whether registered or not or capable of registration or not and including all applications for, and continuations, re-fillings, re-issues and extensions of any of the fore-going rights existing now or in the future;
…
2. GRANT
2.1. In consideration of the payment of the Royalty by the Licensee to the Licensor, the Licensor hereby grants the Licensee an exclusive (for Licensee’s Business and Territory), revocable (in accordance with the terms hereof) right and license (or, as appropriate, sublicense) to Use the Licensed IPR.
…
6. OWNERSHIP AND PROTECTION
6.1. The Licensee acknowledges and agrees that the Licensor is the sole, exclusive, legal and/or beneficial owner of the Virksomhed G.m.b.H IPR and the subject matter thereof. All Use of the Virksomhed G.m.b.H IPR by the Licensee shall inure to the benefit of the Licensor.
12
6.2. The Licensee will, at the request and direction of the Licensor, take any action or do anything necessary or desirable to protect the Licensed IPR including, but not limited to:
…
10. ROYALTY
10.1. The Licensee shall pay the Royalty to the Licensor in accordance with the provisions of Schedule B.
…
10.7. The Royalty rate shall be reviewed periodically by the Parties and adjusted as necessary to ensure it is at arm’s length as required by applicable transfer pricing laws and regulations.”
Af ”Schedule B: Royalty” til licensaftalen fremgår bl.a.:
“…
1. Subject to Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, the Royalty shall be seven per cent (7%) of Client Billings (as defined below).
2. “Client Billings” shall mean billings to Clients on sales and services for unrelated parties exclusive of expense reimbursements:
2.1. excluding reversals of such billings to Clients on sales and services for unrelated parties exclusive of expense reimbursements; and
2.2. excluding billings transferred in from other Entities under the International Engagements Agreement or other related agreements; but
2.3. including billings transferred out to other Entities under the International Engagements Agreement or other related agreements.
3. In relation to revenue from Alliance Partners, the Royalty shall be agreed between the Parties on a case by case basis.
4. The Royalty payable hereunder will be reduced if and to the extent the Royalty payment results in Licensee earning Operating Profits, expressed as a percentage of Net Sales Revenue, of less than a minimum percentage as determined
13
from time to time by the Parties. Operating Profits and Net Sales Revenue shall, in each case, be determined in accordance with US GAAP, consistently applied.”
I 2006 indgik Virksomhed G.m.b.H og Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S endvidere en serviceaftale (“Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S – Intellectual Property Services Agree-ment”). Af serviceaftalen fremgår bl.a.:
“WHEREAS:
(A) The Parties are members of Koncern;
(B) Virksomhed G.m.b.H has borne the cost of developing or acquiring the Virksomhed G.m.b.H IPR, (as defined below) and is the legal and/or beneficial owner of the Virksomhed G.m.b.H IPR;
(C) Virksomhed G.m.b.H is responsible, within Koncern, for the development, enhancement and protection of Intellectual Property and in this respect, appoints the Contractor to provide certain services in relation to the same;
(D) The Parties recognise that the Contractor, by virtue of the nature of its Business and its location in the Territory, is in a position to perform such services and assist in the development, enhancement and protection of the Virksomhed G.m.b.H IPR;
(E) The Parties wish to more clearly articulate their rights and obligations under this Agreement;
THEREFORE THE PARTIES AGREE as follows:
1. DEFINITIONS
1.1. In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires:
…
1.1.12. "Effective Date" means:
(a) January 2001 in respect of the Services relating to the Brand and any related rights and obligations in this; and
…
2. PROVISION OF SERVICES
14
2.1. Virksomhed G.m.b.H may from time to time request Contractor to provide the Services to Virksomhed G.m.b.H.
2.2. The Contractor agrees to provide the Services with due care and skill and to the best of its knowledge and abilities and expeditiously where time is of the essence for the provision of those Services.
3. OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACTOR
…
3.2. The Contractor shall, in providing the Services and using any Virksomhed G.m.b.H IPR in connection with the Services, comply fully with such requirements, instructions, standards, specifications, timescales and project plans as may be notified by Virksomhed G.m.b.H from time to time
…
5. SERVICE CHARGE
5.1. In consideration of the supply of the Services, Virksomhed G.m.b.H will pay to the Contractor the Service Charge. In assessing and agreeing the Service Charge, the Parties have taken into account all of the terms of this Agreement and all relevant additional circumstances, including but not limited to:
5.1.1. that Virksomhed G.m.b.H bears the costs and risks in relation to
all Intellectual Property development under this Agreement;
5.1.2. the assignments set out in Clause 7;
5.1.3. the indemnities set out in this Agreement; and
5.1.4. that this Agreement may be terminated without
compensation.
5.2. The Service Charge shall be reviewed periodically by the Parties and adjusted as necessary to ensure it is at arm's length as required by applicable transfer pricing laws and regulations.
…
7. OWNERSHIP OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
15
7.1. The Contractor acknowledges and agrees that Virksomhed G.m.b.H is the sole and exclusive and legal and/or beneficial owner of the Virksomhed G.m.b.H IPR and the subject matter thereof.
7.2. All Intellectual Property developed by the Contractor, or on its behalf:
7.2.1. in the course of performing the Services;
7.2.2. the costs of which development are borne
generally by Virksomhed G.m.b.H pursuant to this Agreement or otherwise; or
7.2.3. which is otherwise developed by the Contractor
(or developed on its behalf), and is generally related to the provision of the Services, …”
Af Appellant A/S', tidligere Sagsøgte A/S transfer pricing-dokumentation om den fastsatte royaltysats på 7 % i licensaftalen fremgår bl.a.:
“II. Virksomhed 1 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
A. Virksomhed G.m.b.H
As described in the Company Overview, the Virksomhed 1 business model combines industry knowledge, business process and technology exper-tise, and intellectual assets to formulate and implement solutions for cli-ents who seek to integrate the latest technology and process innova-tions into their business operations. Virksomhed 1's Intellectual Property contributes significantly to the Company’s ability to charge premium rates for its services. The use of IP enables Virksomhed 1 teams to bring value to clients faster and with results superior to those achieved by Virksomhed 1 competitors or by the clients acting on their own.
Virksomhed G.m.b.H has the responsibility for Virksomhed 1's global IP Management pro-gram, including the ownership, development, improvement, enhance-ment and protection of the Virksomhed 1 Intellectual Property. The rela-tionship between Virksomhed G.m.b.H and Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S operating entities is governed by the Virksomhed G.m.b.H Intellectual Property License Agreement. Under this agree-ment, Virksomhed G.m.b.H grants to the Virksomhed 1 operating entities a non-exclusive, revocable right and license to use and sublicense within their territory all Licensed Intellectual Property Rights developed or acquired by Virksomhed G.m.b.H. Licensed Intellectual Property Rights (“Licensed IPR”) under the Virksomhed G.m.b.H IP License Agreement is defined in the agreement as Virksomhed G.m.b.H IPR (all IPR
16
owned by Virksomhed G.m.b.H including all IPR developed or acquired by Virksomhed G.m.b.H after the Effective Date) and Third Party/Entity IPR (all IPR licensed to Virksomhed G.m.b.H by the operating entities and/or parties outside the Virksomhed 1 Organiza-tion). As described in more detail below, licensed IPR (referred to in this document as the Virksomhed 1 Intellectual Property) includes:
•The Virksomhed 1 name, brand and related IP,
•Trademarks, patents, copyrights, and
•Improvements and intellectual property in and relating to:
oMarket Offerings including content development and marketing support,
oTools and methods, and,
oOther Intellectual property including inventions, solution construction aids, prototypes and other Virksomhed 1 organization intellectual property not necessarily related to a specific Market Offering.
B. Virksomhed 1 Financial Statements
The historical financial information used throughout this report has been taken from Virksomhed 1's filings with the US Securities and Ex-change Commission (“SEC”) for fiscal years ended August 31, 2005, 2006 and 2007.
C. Functional Analysis
Virksomhed 1 provides business consulting and outsourcing services to cli-ents, delivering its services through five Global Operating Groups, which are managed globally and have representation in the legal enti-ties in each of the countries where Virksomhed 1 operates. Business process and technology expertise is the primary responsibility of the Growth Platforms, which are also managed globally but have a local presence in each country. The Growth Platforms provide access to expertise in cer-tain “horizontal” business disciplines and information technology solu-tions and are the centers of innovation through which the Company de-livers a range of services and solutions that address business opportuni-ties and challenges common across industries. The Growth Platforms have deep technical expertise in their respective areas, and employ sub-ject matter experts who complement the industry-specific consulting, technology and outsourcing expertise of the Operating Group profes-sionals. Client engagement teams typically consist of industry experts, service line specialists, and locally based consultants who team together to create tailored solutions for clients quickly and cost effectively.
17
Client work in Virksomhed 1's consulting practice is project driven with a defined outcome. The duration of engagements is typically anywhere from four months to three years. Consulting projects include the design and implementation of information technology applications and/or systems, design and implementation of new business strategies and processes, improvement of a client company’s customer relationship management, development of new product strategies, improvement of organizational skills and processes, and similar projects geared to the enhancement of business performance.
Virksomhed 1's outsourcing business involves operating all or a portion of a client company's back office processes, such as its technology infra-structure or payables processing function, on a long-term contract basis. Virksomhed 1 provides a range of services for managing technology infra-structure, applications and business processes. Virksomhed 1's outsourcing offerings also include a variety of shared-service solutions, including call centers, customer information management, billing systems, infor-mation technology services, supply chain management and human re-sources administration.
The consulting and outsourcing businesses in which Virksomhed 1 engages involve two core types of activities: (1) assignment, supervision, train-ing and recruitment of personnel; and (2) marketing, selling and deliv-ering consulting and outsourcing services. These activities are common to all companies that are in the business of consulting and/or outsourc-ing and thus may be considered as “routine” activities for transfer pric-ing purposes. In addition, some leading companies such as Virksomhed 1 spend significant resources developing intellectual property and mar-keting intangibles that enhance their competitive position in the mar-ketplace.
Virksomhed 1 differentiates itself from other consulting companies by the delivery of value oriented consulting and technology services, using Virksomhed G.m.b.Hs unique intangibles – capabilities, service offerings and approaches that give the Company a competitive advantage. These intangibles, or Intellectual Property, are a key part of Virksomhed 1's operating strategy and business model. As noted previously, the Virksomhed G.m.b.H Intellectual Property includes the name and brand, the legally registered intangibles includ-ing trademarks and patents, and intellectual property relating to:
• Market Offerings including content development and
marketing support. Examples of assets in this category include existing templates, business and technical architectures addressing business process design and
18
systems integration design, and proprietary software assets developed to support the integration and optimum use of systems and applications offered to the market by Virksomhed 1's affiliated companies and alliance partners. In certain cases, Virksomhed 1 has developed its own software and technical infrastructure.
• Tools and methods. Examples of assets in this category
include unique methods, processes, tools and templates to address client problems in different business disciplines – for instance: supply chain optimization, strategy and business organization best practices that improve corporate governance after a merger, systems integration methodologies to link older information technology systems with newer technologies, human performance gains achieved through electronic learning practices, training, or work process redesign, and better management of capital resources through an improved treasury function.
• Other Intellectual Property including inventions, solution
construction aids, prototypes and other Intellectual Property not necessarily related to a specific Market Offering.
With respect to the transfer pricing of intangibles within Virksomhed 1, the division of functional responsibilities between Virksomhed 1 operating en-tities and Virksomhed G.m.b.H may be described as follows: Virksomhed 1 operating enti-ties are responsible for supervision, maintenance, recruitment and training of qualified personnel; sales and marketing of consulting and outsourcing work to prospective clients; and delivery of services to ex-isting clients. Virksomhed G.m.b.H is responsible for the IP Management program which includes the ownership, development, improvement, enhance-ment and protection of the Intellectual Property in support of Virksomhed 1 client teams to sell and execute on engagements. In that capacity, Virksomhed G.m.b.H bears all costs and risks in connection with the management of the brand and non-brand IP assets…
…
III. SELECTION OF THE BEST METHOD
The OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) and the transfer pricing rules of most countries in which Virksomhed 1 operates, specify two methods for evaluating the arm’s length nature of a con-trolled transfer of intangible property. These methods are the compara-ble uncontrolled price (“CUP”) method and the profit split method.
19
Given the available information, the residual profit split method (“RPSM”), a category of profit split method, is identified as the most re-liable method. In addition, the conclusions of the residual profit split method were also corroborated by reference to the data obtained from a large set of external third-party licensing transactions.
It should be noted that in cases when one controlled entity owns the economic rights to all the intangibles, as is the case within Virksomhed 1, that party will receive the residual profit under the RPSM. The other controlled entities will receive a return for its routine activities as deter-mined by the market benchmarks. In such situations, the application of RPSM is similar to the transactional net margin method of the Guide-lines.
A. Application of the Residual Profit Split Method to Virksomhed 1
Financial Framework
Exhibit I.1 presents historical income statements for Virksomhed 1 for fiscal years 2005 to 2007. The historical information is taken from consoli-dated financial statements in Virksomhed 1's Form 10K as filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Exhibit I.2 presents the three-year average operating income statement for the period 2005 to 2007. The average operating margin achieved by Virksomhed 1 over this period is 12% and represents the profitability attributable both to rou-tine activities and to the Virksomhed 1 Intellectual Property.
Selection of Time Period for Model
The OECD Guidelines call for the use of a multi-year average when ap-plying the residual profit split method in order to account for the effect of business cycles, or unusual events that may influence profits of the tested party or the comparables. Typically, a three-year average is ap-propriate. We used an average of Virksomhed 1's financial data for the three most recent years (the fiscal years ended Aug 31, 2005 to Aug 31, 2007), in order to establish the routine return. Since the majority of the comparable companies did not have the same fiscal year ends as Virksomhed 1, data was matched as closely as possible to Virksomhed 1's three-year period. As a practical matter, the most recent three-year period availa-ble for most of the comparables included the 2004 to 2007 financial peri-ods.
Description of Comparable Search and Selection Criteria for Routine Activities
To determine the profits allocable to routine activities of Virksomhed 1 op-erating entities, a set of 35 comparable companies was identified through search of several commercial databases of publicly held com-
20
panies. The detailed search strategy and the summary business descrip-tions of the companies that were selected as comparable are contained in Exhibits II.1, II.2 and II.3. As described in Exhibit II.1, the objective of the search was to identify companies that provided information tech-nology and/or management consulting services, preferably on a multi-national basis and had business lines similar to those of Virksomhed 1. The range of returns earned by these companies is the applicable range for compensating Virksomhed 1 operating entities for their routine consulting and outsourcing activities.
The companies identified above show an interquartile range of markups on cost from 5% to 11%, as shown in Exhibit I.3. The markup obtained from the comparables search is converted into a return on sales (“ROS”) as detailed in Exhibit I.4, by computing the appropriate cost base for Virksomhed 1 over the period 2005 to 2007 and multiplying it by the cost-plus markup. The historical cost base for Virksomhed 1 was op-erating cost and expenses. For the purpose of calculating the routine markup, the Intangible Generating Expenses are excluded from the cost base. The resulting quotient is then divided by the average revenue base to yield an interquartile routine return on sales range of 4 to 10%. (See Exhibit I.4).
Selection of Profit Level Indicator for Comparables
The application of a comparable profits analysis for determining rou-tine profits requires the selection of a profit level indicator (“PLI”). This serves as an objective measure of profitability from operations to be used in comparing the results achieved by a tested party on intercom-pany transactions to results achieved by comparable uncontrolled com-panies. The PLI measures the relationship between (i) profits and (ii) ei-ther costs incurred, revenues earned, or assets employed.
The PLIs may include: (i) return on operating assets (“ROA”), (i.e., op-erating profit divided by operating assets) or (ii) such financial ratios as the operating margin (operating profit divided by net sales or return on sales, ROS), or a percentage markup (operating profit divided by total cost), or a Berry ratio (gross profit divided by operating expenses).
The selection of the appropriate PLI depends primarily upon the extent to which the profit level indicator is likely to produce a reliable measure of income that the tested party would have earned had it dealt with un-controlled taxpayers at arm’s length. The choice of PLI thus depends on a comparative analysis of the functions and risks of the tested party, and the availability and accuracy of the financial data for the tested party and comparable companies.
21
The analysis performed for this report uses the net markup on total op-erating cost. This PLI is generally used in evaluating the profitability of service providers, as it measures their profitability relative to their total costs (both direct and indirect costs) and mirrors the typical price set-ting mechanism of consulting service providers.
Determination of Base-Line Returns for Routine Functions
The starting point of the residual profit split analysis is the consolidated financial statements for Virksomhed 1 related to sales of services incorpo-rating the Virksomhed 1 Intellectual Property for the fiscal years 2005 to 2007, described above. Virksomhed 1's three year average operating income statement is then segmented into two hypothetical entities: Entity A, performing non-routine activities and Entity B, performing routine ac-tivities. Entity B bears all the costs associated with Virksomhed 1's routine activities, i.e., consulting and outsourcing, sales and marketing, and general and administrative. Entity A bears the costs of developing and maintaining the Virksomhed 1 Intellectual Property.
For purposes of segmenting the operating results, it is necessary to allo-cate the Intangible Generating Expenses since these expenses will be borne by the entity that holds the economic rights to the IP. This pro-portion of IGE’s as a percentage of revenue is shown in Exhibit I.8.
Entity B must earn a return on the costs incurred by it as benchmarked to the returns exhibited by the set of comparable companies engaging in similar activities. Under the RPSM, any residual profit after the deter-mination of routine return is then allocated to Entity A in the form of an intercompany royalty. As shown in Exhibit I.3, an interquartile range of operating returns on cost was determined for the set of comparable companies described above. This interquartile range was then applied to the total cost of Virksomhed 1, excluding IGE’s (i.e., excluding the cost of IP development and brand marketing and advertising), to obtain the arm’s length profit range for routine activities. The interquartile operat-ing profit margin range for routine activities was then derived as a ratio of arm’s length routine profit to total revenue base. As shown in Exhibit I.4, the applicable profit margin range is 4% to 10%.
Determination of Arm’s Length Royalty Range
Once the routine profit is determined, the royalty from Entity B to En-tity A for the use of the intangibles is computed as the amount of resid-ual profit remaining plus Entity A’s operating costs and expenses. Ex-hibits I.5 - I.7 show the calculation of the arm’s length interquartile roy-alty range payable to the entity that performs non-routine activities. As
22
seen, the interquartile range is between 5% and 11%. At 7%, the world-wide intercompany royalty rate for Virksomhed 1 IP is within the inter-quartile the range.
Summary of Residual Profit Split Method Results
Based on updated financial information for Virksomhed 1 and the compa-rable companies, the 7% worldwide royalty rate is within the arm’s length range.”
Af Appellant A/S', tidligere Sagsøgte A/S transfer pricing-dokumentation vedrørende serviceaftalen frem-går bl.a.:
“Markup on Costs of Providing Intragroup IP Services
Virksomhed G.m.b.H contracts with the Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S operating entities to procure IP and Brand development services (“IP Services”). This arrangement is gov-erned by Koncern Intellectual Property Services Agreement (the “IP Services Agreement”). A separate comparables-based analysis is used to determine an arm’s length markup on total costs to be used in pricing the IP Services provided by the Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S operating entities to Virksomhed G.m.b.H pursuant to the IP Services Agreement. The analysis indicates an arm’s length markup range of 4% to 16%. The intercompany markup used to compensate Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S operating entities for IP Services they perform for Virksomhed G.m.b.H is 8%.”
Højesterets begrundelse og resultat
1. Sagens baggrund og problemstillinger
Koncern er en international konsulent- og it-virksomhed, hvis mo-derselskab er Virksomhed plc (Irland), der er børsnoteret på New York Stock Ex-change. Koncern servicerer sine kunder gennem lokale driftssel-skaber, der har egne medarbejdere.
Koncernens driftsselskaber, herunder Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S i Danmark, indgik i 2001 ”The Virksomhed 1 Organisations International Assignment Agreement” (IAA-af-talen) med Virksomhed SCA (Luxembourg) om ind- og udleje af medarbejdere mellem koncernens driftsselskaber. Ifølge IAA-aftalen betaler det indlejende selskab det udlejende selskabs direkte og indirekte lønomkostninger med et avancetillæg (mark-up). I henhold til Koncerns transfer pricing-analyse er avancetillægget (bruttoavancen) fastsat til 30 %. I indkomstårene 2005-2011 har Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S haft nettoomkostninger til indleje af medarbejdere i henhold til IAA-aftalen.
23
Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S har i 2006 endvidere indgået en licensaftale med det schweiziske koncernselskab Virksomhed G.m.b.H. Ifølge licensaftalen ejer Virksomhed G.m.b.H en række immaterielle aktiver, og Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S betaler en royalty på 7 % af sin omsætning med eksterne kunder for udnyttelsen heraf.
Sagen vedrører ansættelsen af Appellant A/S', tidligere Sagsøgte A/S skattepligtige indkomst for ind-komstårene 2005-2011 for så vidt angår selskabets omkostninger til indleje af medarbejdere i henhold til IAA-aftalen og for indkomståret 2007 tillige royalty-betaling i henhold til licensaftalen.
Ved afgørelse af 31. august 2011 nedsatte SKAT (nu Skattestyrelsen) skønsmæs-sigt avancetillægget til 4,1 % på omkostninger til indleje af medarbejdere for indkomstårene 2005 og 2006 og forhøjede herved Appellant A/S', tidligere Sagsøgte A/S skattepligtige indkomst med 14.919.780 kr. (2005) og 16.996.616 kr. (2006). Ved afgørelse af 12. marts 2014 nedsatte SKAT skønsmæssigt avancetillægget til 7,27 % for ind-komstårene 2007-2011 og forhøjede herved selskabets skattepligtige indkomst med 7.957.753 kr. (2007), 14.027.403 kr. (2008), 14.122.679 kr. (2009), 18.000.146 kr. (2010) og 15.127.184 kr. (2011). Endvidere nedsatte SKAT skønsmæssigt fra-draget for royalty betalt af Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S i 2007 og forhøjede derved selskabets skattepligtige indkomst med 25.951.421 kr.
Landsskatteretten fandt ved afgørelse af 16. december 2015 (indkomstårene 2005-2006) og afgørelse af 24. maj 2019 (indkomstårene 2007-2011), at der ikke var grundlag for at ændre avancetillægget på 30 % og nedsatte herefter SKATs forhøjelser af Appellant A/S', tidligere Sagsøgte A/S skattepligtige indkomst til 0 kr. i de pågældende indkomstår. Ved afgørelsen af 24. maj 2019 fandt Landsskatteretten herudover, at der ikke var grundlag for at ændre royaltysatsen på 7 %, men at der ved op-gørelsen af royalty skulle anvendes danske regnskabsstandarder. Forhøjelsen af den skattepligtige indkomst vedrørende royalty for indkomståret 2007 blev her-efter fastsat til 7.027.853 kr.
Skatteministeriet anlagde sag mod Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S med påstand om, at selska-bets skattepligtige indkomst forhøjes for indkomståret 2005 med 14.919.780 kr., for indkomståret 2006 med 16.996.616 kr., for indkomståret 2007 med 26.881.321 kr., for indkomståret 2008 med 14.027.403 kr., for indkomståret 2009 med 14.122.679 kr., for indkomståret 2010 med 18.000.146 kr. og for indkomståret 2011 med 15.127.184 kr.
Landsretten gav Skatteministeriet medhold i den nedlagte påstand.
Med den for Højesteret nedlagte påstand ønsker Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S at blive stillet som efter Landsskatterettens afgørelser med den ændring, at selskabets skatte-pligtige indkomst for indkomståret 2007 vedrørende royalty nedsættes med 7.027.853 kr.
24
Højesteret skal tage stilling til, om avancetillægget på 30 % af Appellant A/S', tidligere Sagsøgte A/S omkostninger til indleje af medarbejdere i indkomstårene 2005-2011 og den be-talte royalty til Virksomhed G.m.b.H i 2007 på 7 % af omsætningen med eksterne kunder er i overensstemmelse med ligningslovens § 2, stk. 1 (armslængdeprincippet).
Der er i den forbindelse spørgsmål om, hvorvidt Appellant A/S', tidligere Sagsøgte A/S transfer pri-cing-dokumentation er mangelfuld i så væsentligt omfang, at SKAT har været berettiget til skønsmæssigt at ansætte avancetillægget og royalty, jf. skattekon-trollovens dagældende § 3 B, stk. 8, jf. § 5, stk. 3. Der er endvidere spørgsmål om, hvorvidt Skatteministeriet har godtgjort, at avancetillægget og royaltybeta-lingen ikke er i overensstemmelse med ligningslovens § 2, stk. 1.
2. IAA-aftalen
2.1. Transfer pricing-dokumentationen
Det fremgår af de dagældende bestemmelser i skattekontrollovens § 3 B, stk. 8, jf. § 5, stk. 3, at hvis den skattepligtige ikke har udarbejdet den lovpligtige do-kumentation for prisfastsættelse af transaktioner mellem interesseforbundne parter (transfer pricing-dokumentation), kan skatteansættelsen foretages skøns-mæssigt. Højesteret har i dom af 31. januar 2019 (UfR 2019.1446) fastslået, at en transfer pricing-dokumentation, der i så væsentligt omfang er mangelfuld, at den ikke giver skattemyndighederne et tilstrækkeligt grundlag for at vurdere, om armslængdeprincippet er overholdt, må sidestilles med manglende doku-mentation.
Højesteret har i dom af 25. juni 2020 (UfR 2020.3156) endvidere fastslået, at det forhold, at skattemyndighederne er uenig i eller rejser berettiget tvivl om sam-menlignelighedsanalysen, ikke i sig selv indebærer, at dokumentationen i væ-sentligt omfang er mangelfuld.
Det er skattemyndighederne, der skal godtgøre, at en transfer pricing-doku-mentation er så mangelfuld, at det må sidestilles med manglende dokumenta-tion.
I den konkrete sag har Skatteministeriet anført, at Appellant A/S', tidligere Sagsøgte A/S transfer pricing-dokumentation er mangelfuld og har herved henvist til navnlig, at et avancetil-læg på armslængdevilkår skulle have været fastsat som en nettoavance og ikke som en bruttoavance, samt at denne nettoavance skulle have været fastsat base-ret på vikarbureauers nettoavancer.
Højesteret finder, at Skatteministeriet ikke har godtgjort, at Appellant A/S', tidligere Sagsøgte A/S globale transfer pricing-dokumentation for indkomstårene 2005-2011 vedrørende avan-cetillægget på 30 % var mangelfuld i så væsentligt omfang, at det kunne side-stilles med manglende dokumentation. Det bemærkes herved, at transfer pri-
25
cing-dokumentationen er baseret på OECD’s retningslinjer for transfer pricing, og at den bl.a. indeholder et begrundet valg af metode (Cost Plus-metoden), en funktions- og risikoanalyse og en sammenlignelighedsanalyse foretaget på et oplyst datagrundlag. Det forhold, at Skatteministeriet er uenig i prisfastsættel-sesmetoden eller i sammenlignelighedsanalysen, gør ikke i sig selv dokumenta-tionen mangelfuld.
Højesteret finder derfor, at Appellant A/S', tidligere Sagsøgte A/S indkomst vedrørende omkostnin-gerne til indleje af medarbejdere i henhold til IAA-aftalen for indkomstårene 2005-2011 ikke kunne ansættes skønsmæssigt i medfør af dagældende skatte-kontrollovs § 3 B, stk. 8, jf. § 5, stk. 3.
Spørgsmålet er herefter, om Skatteministeriet har godtgjort, at avancetillægget på 30 % ikke er i overensstemmelse med, hvad der kunne være opnået, hvis transaktionerne var afsluttet mellem uafhængige parter (armslængdeprincip-pet), jf. ligningslovens § 2, stk. 1.
2.2 Vurdering af armslængdepris
Det følger af IAA-aftalens pkt. 6, at det indlejende selskab til det udlejende sel-skab skal betale det udlejende selskabs direkte og indirekte lønomkostninger (produktionsomkostninger) til de indlejede medarbejdere med et avancetillæg (mark-up) med henblik på, at den samlede betaling udgør en armslængdepris for at stille en specialiseret medarbejder til rådighed.
Der er enighed om, at ind- og udleje af medarbejdere mellem Koncerns driftsselskaber ikke kan sidestilles med levering af en konsulentydelse, og at prisen ikke kan fastsættes ved at sammenligne med prisen på en konsulent-ydelse til en uafhængig part efter Comparable Uncontrolled Price-metoden (CUP).
Med henblik på at vise, at prisen for ind- og udleje af medarbejdere er på arms-længdevilkår, har Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S i transfer pricing-dokumentationen anvendt Cost Plus-metoden. Denne metode tager udgangspunkt i de direkte og indirekte pro-duktionsomkostninger, som er afholdt ved de kontrollerede transaktioner. Dis-se omkostninger tillægges en avance (bruttoavance). Avancetillægget (mark-up-procenten) fastsættes med udgangspunkt i den avance og de omkostninger, som uafhængige parter har ved sammenlignelige transaktioner, jf. OECD’s ret-ningslinjer for transfer pricing (TPG), 2017, pkt. 2.45, og nu Skatteforvaltningens Juridiske Vejledning 2024-2, afsnit C.D.11.4.1.3.
Ved fastsættelse af avancetillægget til produktionsomkostningerne efter IAA-aftalens pkt. 6 har Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S i transfer pricing-dokumentationen lagt til grund, at en uafhængig part ville kræve, at et avancetillæg skulle dække kapacitetsom-
26
kostninger (generalomkostninger, administrative omkostninger og markedsfø-ringsomkostninger) samt en profit (bruttoavance).
Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S har sammenlignet med bruttoavancer i it- og konsulentfirmaer og har herved lagt vægt på navnlig, at alternativet til indleje af medarbejdere ville være at lade et andet it- eller konsulentfirma udføre en del af det projekt for driftsselskabets eksterne kunde, som driftsselskabet ikke selv har tilstrækkelige eller kvalificerede medarbejdere til at udføre.
Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S har udvalgt ca. 50 it- og konsulentvirksomheder, og disse virksom-heders bruttoresultater over en 3-årig periode er justeret, så forholdet mellem deres produktions- og kapacitetsomkostninger svarer til Appellant A/S', tidligere Sagsøgte A/S. Til brug for justeringerne er der sammenlignet med 16 af Appellant A/S', tidligere Sagsøgte A/S driftsselskaber, som stod for 70-80 % af udlejningen af medarbejdere under IAA-aftalen. De herefter beregnede bruttoavancer i % er opdelt i kvartilsæt. Et avancetillæg på 30 % er inden for det interkvartile spænd i alle de omhandlede indkomstår.
Som nævnt påhviler det Skatteministeriet at godtgøre, at avancetillægget på 30 % ikke er i overensstemmelse med, hvad der kunne være opnået, hvis transakti-onerne var afsluttet mellem uafhængige parter.
Højesteret finder, at Skatteministeriet ikke har godtgjort, at det er i strid med armslængdeprincippet at fastsætte avancetillægget efter Cost Plus-metoden som en bruttoavance, der skal dække de anførte kapacitetsomkostninger samt en profit. Det er i den forbindelse ikke godtgjort, at en uafhængig part ikke kunne opnå en sådan betaling.
Højesteret finder endvidere, at Skatteministeriet ikke har godtgjort, at avancetil-lægget ikke kan fastsættes ved en sammenligning med bruttoavancer i andre it-og konsulentfirmaer. Det er herved ikke godtgjort, at den ydelse, der er forbun-det med at udleje en specialiseret medarbejder fra et Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/Sdriftsselskab, bør sammenlignes med et vikarbureaus udlejning af en vikar.
Herefter – og da det, som Skatteministeriet i øvrigt har anført, ikke kan føre til anden vurdering – finder Højesteret, at Skatteministeriet ikke har godtgjort, at et avancetillæg på 30 % ikke ligger inden for rammerne af, hvad der kunne være opnået, hvis transaktionerne var afsluttet mellem uafhængige parter, jf. ligningslovens § 2, stk. 1.
3. Royalty
3.1. Virksomhed G.m.b.Hs ejerskab
Som anført ejer Virksomhed G.m.b.H ifølge licensaftalen med Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S en række immateri-elle aktiver. Disse immaterielle aktiver omfatter Koncerns navn og
27
brand samt en række andre immaterielle aktiver, herunder patenter og ophavs-rettigheder samt ikke-registrerede rettigheder i form af f.eks. procesværktøjer.
Skatteministeriet har bestridt dette ejerskab og har henvist til, at ”ejerskabet” beror på en overdragelse af immaterielle aktiver til Virksomhed G.m.b.H i 2001, der var ”en fik-tiv konstruktion uden realitet” .
Efter bevisførelsen må det lægges til grund, at Virksomhed G.m.b.H siden 2001 har haft ansvaret for og truffet beslutninger om udviklingen af Koncerns immateri-elle aktiver, har varetaget beskyttelsen af disse immaterielle aktiver og har af-holdt udgifterne hertil. Virksomhed G.m.b.H har endvidere varetaget og afholdt udgifterne til koncernens overordnede markedsføring. Virksomhed G.m.b.H har i perioden 2007-2011 haft ca. 11 fastansatte medarbejdere og har herudover afholdt betydelige udgifter til indleje af medarbejdere fra andre koncernselskaber.
Højesteret finder ikke grundlag for at fastslå, at Virksomhed G.m.b.H ikke er ejer af de immateri-elle aktiver, som licensaftalen mellem Virksomhed G.m.b.H og Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S fra 2006 angår.
3.2. Transfer pricing-dokumentationen
Skatteministeriet har anført, at Appellant A/S', tidligere Sagsøgte A/S transfer pricing-dokumentation er mangelfuld og har henvist til navnlig, at der ikke er taget tilstrækkeligt hensyn til, at Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S bidrager til den værdi, der knytter sig til de immaterielle aktiver.
Højesteret finder, at Skatteministeriet ikke har godtgjort, at Appellant A/S', tidligere Sagsøgte A/S globale transfer pricing-dokumentation for indkomståret 2007 vedrørende royaltysat-sen på 7 % var mangelfuld i så væsentligt omfang, at det kunne sidestilles med manglende dokumentation. Det bemærkes herved, at transfer pricing-doku-mentationen er baseret på OECD’s retningslinjer for transfer pricing, og at den bl.a. indeholder et begrundet valg af metode (Residual Profit Split), en funkti-ons- og risikoanalyse og en sammenlignelighedsanalyse foretaget på et oplyst datagrundlag. Det forhold, at Skatteministeriet mener, at der ikke i tilstrækkelig grad er taget hensyn til, at Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S bidrager til den værdi, der knytter sig til de immaterielle aktiver, gør ikke i sig selv dokumentationen mangelfuld.
Højesteret finder derfor, at Appellant A/S', tidligere Sagsøgte A/S indkomst for indkomståret 2007 vedrørende royaltybetaling ikke kunne ansættes skønsmæssigt i medfør af dagældende skattekontrollovs § 3 B, stk. 8, jf. § 5, stk. 3.
Spørgsmålet er herefter, om Skatteministeriet har godtgjort, at Appellant A/S', tidligere Sagsøgte A/S royaltybetaling til Virksomhed G.m.b.H i 2007 ikke er i overensstemmelse med, hvad der kunne være opnået, hvis transaktionerne var afsluttet mellem uafhængige parter (armslængdeprincippet), jf. ligningslovens § 2, stk. 1.
28
3.3. Vurdering af armslængdepris
Som nævnt følger det af licensaftalen mellem Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S og Virksomhed G.m.b.H, at Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S skal betale en royalty på 7 % af sin omsætning med eksterne kunder for udnyttelsen af de immaterielle aktiver, der ejes af Virksomhed G.m.b.H. Ifølge aftalen redu-ceres royalty, hvis resultatet af driften kommer under en minimumssats. Opgø-relsen sker efter amerikanske regnskabsstandarder.
Med henblik på at vise, at royaltysatsen på 7 % er på armslængdevilkår, har Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S i transfer pricing-dokumentationen anvendt avancefordelingsmetoden (Residual Profit Split). Når denne metode anvendes, er målet at fordele profit-ten (eller tabet) fra en kontrolleret transaktion mellem de forbundne parter, så-dan som parterne under sammenlignelige omstændigheder ville have delt pro-fitten fra transaktionen, hvis transaktionen ikke havde været kontrolleret, jf. OECD’s retningslinjer for transfer pricing (TPG), 2017, pkt. 2.121, og nu Skatte-forvaltningens Juridiske Vejledning 2024-2, afsnit C.D.11.4.1.5.
Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S har taget udgangspunkt i, at Koncerns samlede indtje-ning kommer fra koncernens driftsselskaber (konsulenthus-driften) og fra ud-nyttelse af koncernens immaterielle aktiver, der ejes af Virksomhed G.m.b.H.
Den andel af Koncerns indtjening, der beregningsmæssigt kan an-ses for at knytte sig til konsulenthus-driften, er opgjort ved at sammenholde Koncern indtjening i en 3-årig periode med sammenlignelige konsu-lentfirmaers gennemsnitlige indtjening i den tilsvarende periode. Den andel af indtjeningen, der ikke knytter sig til konsulenthus-driften, er anset for at knytte sig til udnyttelsen af Virksomhed G.m.b.Hs immaterielle aktiver. Jo højere en andel af indtjenin-gen, der knytter sig til konsulenthus-driften, desto lavere er royaltysatsen. Ifølge beregningerne modsvarer en royaltysats på 7 % en indtjening fra konsu-lenthus-driften på 7,68 %, hvilket er over medianen for de sammenlignelige konsulentfirmaers indtjening.
Højesteret finder det ikke godtgjort, at Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S ved anvendelse af avancefor-delingsmetoden og den foretagne sammenlignelighedsanalyse for indtjeningen på konsulenthus-driften ikke har taget tilstrækkeligt hensyn til, at Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S bidrager til den værdi, der knytter sig til de immaterielle aktiver. Skattemi-nisteriet har i den forbindelse heller ikke godtgjort, at mere end 7,68 % af indtje-ningen bør henføres til konsulenthus-driften, for at royaltysatsen bliver på armslængdevilkår.
Højesteret finder herefter, at Skatteministeriet ikke har godtgjort, at en royalty-sats på 7 % ikke ligger inden for rammerne af, hvad der kunne være opnået, hvis transaktionerne var afsluttet mellem uafhængige parter, jf. ligningslovens § 2, stk. 1. Det er heller ikke godtgjort, at der skatteretligt er grundlag for at til-sidesætte parternes civilretlige aftale om, at royalty beregnes på grundlag af
29
omsætningen med eksterne kunder opgjort efter amerikanske regnskabsstan-darder.
4. Konklusion
På denne baggrund tager Højesteret Appellant A/S', tidligere Sagsøgte A/S principale påstand til følge, således at Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S frifindes for Skatteministeriets påstand om forhøjelse af selskabets skattepligtige indkomst i indkomstårene 2005-2011, og Appellant A/S', tidligere Sagsøgte A/S skattepligtige indkomst for indkomståret 2007 nedsættes med 7.027.853 kr.
Skatteministeriet skal tilbagebetale sagsomkostningsbeløbet for landsretten på 1.000.000 kr. med procesrente fra den 5. september 2023.
5. Sagsomkostninger
Sagsomkostningerne er fastsat til dækning af advokatudgift for landsret og Hø-jesteret med 1.800.000 kr. og retsafgift for Højesteret med 17.000 kr., i alt 1.817.000 kr.
THI KENDES FOR RET:
Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S frifindes.
Appellant A/S', tidligere Sagsøgte A/S skattepligtige indkomst for indkomståret 2007 nedsættes med 7.027.853 kr.
Skatteministeriet skal til Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S betale 1.000.000 kr. med procesrente fra den 5. september 2023.
I sagsomkostninger for landsret og Højesteret skal Skatteministeriet betale 1.817.000 kr. til Appellant A/S, tidligere Sagsøgte A/S.
De idømte beløb skal betales inden 14 dage efter denne højesteretsdoms afsi-gelse.
Sagsomkostningsbeløbet forrentes efter rentelovens § 8 a.
Publiceret til portalen d. 09-01-2025 kl. 12:00
Modtagere: Advokat (H) Steffen Sværke, Advokat (H) Nikolaj Bjørnholm