Australia: Australian Transfer Pricing Provisions

Australian Tax Update
Last Updated: 10 June 2011
Article by Jock McCormack, Anshu Maharaj and Eddie Ahn

Taxpayer Decisively Wins Transfer Pricing Case in Commissioner Of Taxation v SNF (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 74: Full Federal Court Decision


This case considered the application of Australia's transfer pricing provisions in Division 13 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA36) in respect of purchases of products by SNF (Australia) Pty Ltd (SNF Australia) from overseas manufacturers that were part of the same worldwide group of companies as SNF Australia.

The Full Federal Court (Court) unanimously held that SNF Australia had proved that the prices paid by it were less than the prices paid by independent comparable purchasers. Thus the Court said those prices were arm's length and SNF Australia's prices did not therefore exceed arm's length consideration. Further, the Court made several comments in relation to the interpretation of Australia's domestic law and international agreements which are discussed below.

In applying our domestic transfer pricing provisions, particularly the requirements of section 136AD(3) of the ITAA36, the Court firmly rejected the Commissioner's approach in that applying the arm's length principle, SNF Australia must look at purchases in identical circumstances – refer paragraphs 101 and 102.

Further, in accepting that SNF Australia had raised appropriate comparable transactions involving the acquisition of the same or sufficiently similar products in the same or similar circumstances, the Court rejected a narrower approach to the application of section 136AD(3) which the Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) argued was supported, amongst other things, by the OECD's Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations (OECD TP Guidelines). This narrower approach may have allowed the Commissioner to apply a profit based method (in this case, the transactional net margin method (TNMM)) or more particularly make a determination of arm's length consideration based on the Commissioner's arguably very broad powers of section 136AD(4) of the ITAA36.

Section 136AD(4) provides a power which the Commissioner has threatened in various transfer pricing audits / reviews. It could potentially allow the Commissioner, where it is not possible or practical to ascertain the arm's length consideration with respect to an international transaction (including because of an insufficiency of information available), to deem an arm's length consideration to be applicable as per the Commissioner's determination. The Court rejected the need to apply section 136AD(4) in these circumstances and generally accepted that there may be more than one arm's length price. However, it was held that the taxpayer had demonstrated that the prices paid were arm's length or less than arm's length prices and thus it had absolved itself of the burden of proof and effectively rendered the Commissioner powerless in pursuing adjustments under sections 136AD(3) or (4).


The case concerned the deductibility of purchases by SNF Australia which was a wholly owned subsidiary of SPMC SA, formerly SNF SA (SNF France) a company resident in France. SNF Australia carried on the business of manufacturing and selling products (commonly called "flocculants and coagulants") to end users in the mining, paper and sewage treatment industries in Australia. During the years 1998 to 2004, SNF Australia purchased its supplies, at a price of some $71 million, from other subsidiaries that were resident in France, the USA and China. SNF Australia sustained trading losses in most income years between 1991 and 2004, except in 1995 and 1997, when small accounting profits were made.

Following an Australian Taxation Office (ATO) transfer pricing audit of SNF Australia, the Commissioner in March 2007 made determinations pursuant to the Australian transfer pricing provisions with respect to the prices paid for the acquisitions from these subsidiaries and issued notices of assessment with respect to the 1998 to 2000 and 2002 to 2004 income years.


Generally, the transfer pricing provisions in Division 13 of the ITAA36 allow the Commissioner to adjust the consideration taken to be received or paid by a taxpayer where the consideration for a supply or acquisition of property under an international agreement is not an arm's length amount. For the purposes of these provisions, the arm's length consideration for a supply or acquisition of property is that which might reasonably be expected to arise under an agreement between independent parties dealing at arm's length with each other in relation to the supply or acquisition.

In the context of purchases of goods by an Australian resident company, the transfer pricing provisions are effectively concerned with arrangements that result in the shifting of taxable profits to an overseas related party as a result of the Australian company purchasing goods from the overseas related party at an inflated price (or rather, at a price that exceeds the arm's length consideration).

Australia has double tax agreements (DTAs) with France, the USA and China and each of these DTAs addresses the transfer pricing issue by providing for pricing as if the transactions had been between independent parties. This article is generally similar to that contained in Article 9 (Associated Enterprises) of the OECD Model Tax Convention for the Avoidance of Double Tax with respect to Taxes on Income and Capital (Model Law).


In June 2010, the Federal Court (Middleton J) in SNF (Australia) Pty Ltd v FCT [2010] FCA 635 held that transfer pricing determinations made by the ATO could not stand and that SNF Australia had satisfied the burden of proving that the amounts it had paid for products from the suppliers had been acquired at arm's length consideration.

After evaluating expert evidence given by both parties, the Federal Court concluded that on the basis of the comparable sales methodology, the actual prices paid by SNF Australia for the acquisition of the products were in fact lower than the large majority of prices paid by purchasers in comparable transactions on a global basis over a similar period.

In relation to the fact that SNF Australia had incurred sustained trading losses over the years in question, the Federal Court said that this was irrelevant to applying the test of whether arm's length consideration had been paid in respect of the acquisitions.


The Court considered a number of significant issues which are discussed in detail below.

Comparable Transactions

SNF Australia prepared three sets of comparable transactions to support its position that it had paid arm's length consideration. The first set, prepared by the SNF Group, consisted of five specified foreign companies; the second set, a group of Australian and New Zealand companies; the third set, prepared by an external adviser, was a larger group of 21 companies.

The Commissioner contended that all the sets of comparables were not appropriate to determine an arm's length price for Australian transfer pricing purposes. However, the Court rejected the Commissioner's submissions and held that the first set and a modified version of the third set of comparables were appropriate in determining an arm's length price, with the key reasons being:

For the first set of comparables, the Court was satisfied that SNF Australia and the five chosen companies were all distributors (as opposed to end-users) of the products acquired from the SNF Group;

The Court also accepted the comparability analysis undertaken SNF Australia's expert witness, which was based on the five comparability factors set out in the OECD's TP Guidelines which supported the comparables used in the first set. The OECD's comparability factors were: the characteristics of the property in question; the functions of the proposed comparables; the contractual terms and conditions on which the comparable transactions took place; the economic circumstances of the markets in which the transactions occurred; and the business strategies of the respective parties;

  • A key factor accepted by the Court was the existence of a global market for the products purchased by SNF Australia. Importantly, the existence of that global market meant there was nothing preventing the taxpayer from using companies and transactions from different countries as comparables for transfer pricing purposes;
  • The Court held that the second set of comparables was not appropriate to determine an arm's length price since SNF Australia did not establish that the companies were in the same business as SNF Australia (in particular, as distributors);
  • For the third set of comparables, which was based on the individual products sold by SNF France, the Court held that approximately half of the compared companies were not comparable because their status as distributors had not been established. Nonetheless, the Court was satisfied that the remaining companies were comparable and the price analysis for these companies demonstrated that SNF Australia generally paid lower prices than the comparables.

On this basis, the Court was satisfied that there were appropriate comparables available to determine an arm's length price for the products purchased by SNF Australia. Accordingly, the Court rejected the Commissioner's submission that a different transfer pricing methodology, in particular the TNMM, was required to be applied in these circumstances.

Statutory interpretation - use of OECD TP Guidelines and other extrinsic materials

The Commissioner relied on the OECD TP Guidelines as support in respect of its submissions relating to arm's length consideration. The Court held that the Guidelines were not a legitimate aid to the construction of the DTAs for the following reasons at paragraphs 116 to 118:

"116. ...In order to permit recourse to the guidelines it would therefore be necessary to show that Australia and each of China, the US and France had either agreed to apply to portion of the guidelines relied upon in their performance of the equivalent of Article 9 of each agreement or that it was their practice to do so.
117. There was no evidence that any of the States in question had adopted the practice of applying the guidelines to any of the circumstances in which Article 9 of the Model Law might obtain in their jurisdictions. It must therefore follow that they may not be examined. This conclusion, it should be emphasised, should not foreclose any future attempt to demonstrate that the guidelines do, in fact, evidence State practice.
118. The guidelines are not a legitimate aid to the construction of the double taxation treaties."

Further, the Court rejected the Commissioner's submissions that the OECD TP Guidelines could be used to assist in the interpretation of the domestic transfer pricing provisions (ie Division 13). In this regard, the Court held at paragraphs 118 and 119:

"118... The fact that the provisions are the domestic embodiment of Article 9 of the Model Law does not alter their nature as Australian law and it in that capacity that this Court is required to interpret them. There is no principle of statutory interpretation which requires domestic legislation of the present kind to be read as if it were itself an international agreement...
119. Where, however, the domestic provisions are obscure or unclear then it would be unsound not to attempt to resolve that ambiguity in a way which is consistent with Australia's obligations."

However, the Court noted that it was appropriate to interpret domestic law (ie Division 13 of the ITAA36) in accordance with the ordinary principles governing the interpretation of DTAs where Parliament incorporated the whole text of a DTA in domestic law. The use of the DTA by the Parliament indicated its intention to fulfil its international obligations (refer to paragraph 119). However, the Court stated that the domestic transfer pricing provisions did not adopt and apply the whole text of the DTA.

The Court does not expressly discuss the use of the Model Law, its commentary and its role in interpreting DTAs and domestic law. However, the Court notes that the interpretation adopted in respect of the domestic transfer pricing provisions is consistent with the Model Law and its commentary (refer to paragraph 122).

Taxpayer's Losses

Although not raised as an issue on appeal, the Court agreed with Middleton J the fact that SNF Australia had incurred sustained trading losses over the years in question was irrelevant in determining the arm's length consideration for transfer pricing purposes.


The key conclusions from this case may be summarised as follows:

  • It is our view that the Full Federal Court's decision provides a clear and cogent analysis of the relevant tax issues, in particular, the interpretation of Australia's domestic transfer pricing provisions and the relevance / application of international tax agreements, commentary and other guidelines on their interpretation.
  • As a starting point, domestic provisions should not be interpreted as if it were an international agreement. However, where the domestic provisions are obscure or unclear then the ambiguity may be resolved in a manner which is consistent with Australia's international obligations.
  • It is appropriate to interpret domestic provisions in accordance with the ordinary principles governing the interpretation of DTAs where the Australian Parliament incorporated the whole text of a DTA in domestic law.
  • The OECD TP Guidelines are not a legitimate aid to the interpretation of DTAs or Australia's domestic transfer pricing provisions.
  • So long as appropriate comparable transactions are available, an analysis of relevant comparables (e.g. the 'comparable uncontrolled pricing' method) is an appropriate method to determine an arm's length price for transfer pricing purposes.
  • If there is a global market for the relevant product or service, taxpayers may use comparables from countries and regions other than Australia in determining an arm's length price.
  • When identifying appropriate comparables to determine an arm's length price for transfer pricing purposes, the selected entity comparables should carry out similar activities to the taxpayer (i.e. have 'functional comparability' with the taxpayer).
  • In view of the 4:0 judgement (including the three judges of the Full Federal Court and the single judge of the Federal Court) against the ATO to date, the decision further suggests that certain approaches to Transfer Pricing analysis and law that the Commissioner has been propagating in recent years (e.g. acceptable transfer pricing methods and approaches, prescriptive documentation requirements and section 136AD(4) powers), may not be as settled and supportable at law as the Commissioner would like us to believe.
  • Finally, at this stage it is not clear whether the ATO will seek special leave for an appeal to the High Court. Although the case was a unanimous decision of the Full Federal Court, the ATO may be attracted by the significant precedential value in obtaining a High Court decision on the transfer pricing issues raised in the case. However, in view of the unanimous decision (of the Full Federal Court and the earlier Federal Court decision) against the ATO to date, it is questionable whether special leave to appeal would be granted by the High Court (the highest court in Australia).

© DLA Phillips Fox

DLA Phillips Fox is one of the largest legal firms in Australasia and a member of DLA Piper Group, an alliance of independent legal practices. It is a separate and distinct legal entity. For more information visit

This information is intended as a general overview and discussion of the subjects dealt with. The information provided here was accurate as of the day it was posted; however, the law may have changed since that date. This information is not intended to be, and should not be used as, a substitute for taking legal advice in any specific situation. DLA Piper is not responsible for any actions taken or not taken on the basis of this information. Please refer to the full terms and conditions on our website.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.