The French High Court, on June 26, 1996, has stated that a subsidiary, at the beginning of its activity, may, without acting contrary to the arm's length principle, invoice at a loss the manufacturing works it performs for its parent company, insofar as the price used corresponds to the market price. The facts of the Court case were the following:
In the course of its first two years of activity, a subsidiary invoices to its parent company manufacturing works at a price inferior to the cost price, which it justifies by the insufficiency of quantities dealt with during the launching period. It indicates that it afterwards practises a discount in the price asked to its parent company while realising a profit.
The French High Court has considered that the Tax Authorities have not established, with the sole reference to the cost price, that the prices invoiced by the subsidiary during its launching period were inferior to the market price, and afterwards that the losses incurred during this period would not meet the arm's length principle. Thus the Tax Authorities are not entitle to add back to the income the corresponding losses.
This decision of the French High Court confirms that the reference to the competitive market price is an essential criteria of assessment of the normal nature of the price practised within the group. The sole invoicing at a price inferior to the cost price is not enough to prove the existence of an abnormal practice, as this situation might be explained, like in the present case, by the intrinsic conditions of running of the company.
In the present case, the invoicing at a loss was the result of the insufficiency of the cost plan of the subsidiary at the beginning of its activity, as the fixed costs were all the more high since the quantities dealt with were low. But as soon as the production of the subsidiary increased, the cost price decreased and went below the invoicing prices practised during the following years, which were similar or inferior to those of the examined years and which the Tax Authorities were not critcizing.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be brought about your specific circumstances.
For additional information contact Claire Acard on 33/(1)/55 61 10 10, Lionel Benant on 33/22.214.171.124, Joel Fischer on 33/126.96.36.199, or Laurent Borey on 33/(1)55 61 10 10 or enter text search: "Archibald Andersen Profile".
The members of Archibald Andersen Association d'Avocats (S.G. Archibald and Arthur Andersen International) are registered with the Hauts-de-Seine Bar and the Lyon Bar.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In a recently released milestone decision, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court held, for the very first time, that the duty of financial intermediaries to report suspicions of money laundering...
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”
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).