Click here for Mandarin
The transfer pricing environment in Australia has undergone significant change in recent years. This evolution will continue. Another observed trend is increased litigation by a more encouraged and active ATO. This is coupled by a willingness of taxpayers to defend the arm’s length nature of their international related party transactions. This reflects the significant amount of tax dollars at stake in the transfer pricing space. Consequently, businesses face ongoing challenges in justifying and contemporaneously documenting their transfer pricing positions against an emboldened ATO.
Examples of recent judicial decisions include PepsiCo, SingTel and Mylan. As mentioned above, these cases illustrate the ATO’s willingness to litigate and clearly demonstrate the need of businesses to carefully consider the terms and conditions of their intra-group transactions eg interest rates and royalties.
The PepsiCo case involved litigation around the ATO’s long held view that in certain instances royalties are embedded in the actual tangible product price. The case also raised the prospect, although not part of the ultimate decision, that the punitive Diverted Profits Tax may well have applied to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. In essence, it was ultimately found, once the product price was disaggregated to its constituent parts that there was an element of the total product price that reflected an intangible element to which a royalty should apply and therefore withholding tax was due. Such a scenario may well be commonplace for Australian entities importing products from offshore in which case there may well be a longstanding and significant unpaid withholding tax obligation.
The best form of risk mitigation is clearly documented and justified transfer pricing documentation that supports the arm’s length nature of the respective international related party transactions be it of whatever nature. Duly executed legal agreements between the related parties would also further support any position taken by the taxpayer.
If you would like to discuss this further, please contact your local Moore Australia Expert.
转让定价诉讼日益增加，确保您的文档完备无误！
近年来，澳大利亚的转让定价环境经历了显著的变化，并将持续演进。另一个显著趋势是，随着澳大利亚税务局（ATO）变得更加积极和鼓励诉讼，诉讼案件数量也增加了。此外，纳税人也更愿意捍卫其国际关联方交易的“独立交易原则”的性质，这反映了转让定价领域潜在的巨额税收风险。因此，企业在证明和记录其转让定价立场时面临持续挑战，需对抗一个更加自信的ATO。
近期的一些司法判决，如百事可乐（PepsiCo）、新加坡电信（SingTel）和迈兰（Mylan）等案件，显示了ATO愿意诉讼的态度，也清楚地表明了企业在处理集团内部交易（如利息和版税）的条款和条件时需谨慎考虑。
以百事可乐案为例，该案涉及ATO长期持有的看法，即在某些情况下，版税实际上已包含在有形产品价格中。此案还提到了一个潜在的问题，虽然这不是最终裁决的一部分，即转移利润税可能适用于该案件的相关事实和情况。从本质上讲，最终发现一旦产品价格被细分到其各个组成部分，其中一部分价格确实反映了一个无形元素，因此应当支付版税和相应的预扣税。对于从海外进口产品的澳大利亚实体来说，这种情况可能很常见，因此可能存在长期而且重大的未支付预扣税责任。
降低风险的最佳方法是准备清晰、有力并符合独立交易原则的转让定价文档，来支持相关国际关联方交易。关联方之间正式执行的法律协议也可以进一步支持纳税人所持立场。