Germany: 177. Transfer Pricing: Secret Comparables and Comparable Profits Methods in Germany

Last Updated: 21 July 1999
KPMG Germany Webpage
Click on the above link to visit the KPMG Germany webpage on the Mondaq website

For disclaimer and copyright see end of this article.

At the time of the publication of the new 1995 OECD Guidelines, the German tax authorities were quick to issue a press statement declaring that "the Federal Republic of Germany considers the traditional methods to be adequate" and will not employ profit-oriented methods "except for purposes of verification [of another method] or estimation."

However, high officials in the German tax administration are known to have since had second thoughts on this matter. In a German language article (IStR 1999, 304) and again in the April 1999 issue of International Tax Review, Thomas Borstell and Michael Prick presented what they correctly identified as an important transfer pricing decision by the Düsseldorf Tax Court. It would appear to be the first reported court case in which the tax authorities have attempted to apply a comparable profits method.

Only excerpts of the decision have been published (IStR 1999, 311).

1. Facts, issues and grounds of the decision

The case involved the German marketing subsidiary of a foreign fashion clothes manufacturer. The subsidiary purchased mainly from related parties, but had also bought some of its goods from independent sources. It sold only to independent parties and reported an overall net loss for the 14 year period from 1980 to 1993.

Using the resale price method, the tax authorities claimed that the gross profit margin on goods purchased from related parties was too low and treated the income lost as a result of this deficiency as a constructive dividend. In order to determine what they saw as the appropriate gross profit margin, the tax officials relied on detailed comparables from the tax files of companies not party to the litigation (secret comparables) and to a lesser extent on the Betriebsprüfungskartei, a general body of economic data gathered by the tax authorities from audits throughout Germany. They also took some comparative data from public databases. In addition, the tax authorities also used the transactional net margin method (TNMM) to compare net margins as a check against their resale price method. Here they again relied on secret comparables.

The court did not follow the reasoning of the tax authorities and instead decided the case by comparing the gross margin which the subsidiary had earned on controlled transactions with the gross margin on its uncontrolled transactions. This approach may be viewed either as an "internal" comparable profits method based on a comparison of gross margins or as a resale price method using gross margin to calculate backwards from the uncontrolled selling price to the arm's length purchase price. It led to an upwards adjustment below that sought by the tax authorities.

Since the court compared the gross margins, not the prices, of the taxpayer's controlled and uncontrolled transactions, it is imprecise to characterise this approach as an "internal price comparison," as do Borstell and Prick in their article. However, these authors are certainly correct in finding that the "most remarkable aspect" of this decision is not the "internal" comparison of gross margins, although there is much to criticise in the court's handling of this part of the case.

2. TNMM and secret comparables

The most remarkable aspect of the case is the attempt by the tax authorities to corroborate their adjustments by means of the transactional net margin method (TNMM). Specifically, the tax authorities performed an external comparison of return on sales and return on assets using data taken from the tax files of allegedly comparable companies not party to the litigation. The tax authorities first used a public database to identify companies which might be comparable and then requested the confidential tax files of these companies from other tax offices. After a further elimination process, the tax authorities sought to present data taken from the confidential tax files of four firms to the court. The tax authorities were unable to obtain suitable comparative data from the external database itself.

The court rejected the "external" profit comparison by the tax authorities on two grounds:

Firstly, the court treated this method as permissible only under a provision in the international transactions tax act which permits estimation of the arm's length profit under certain circumstances (§ 1 (3) AStG). The court held that the requirements for such estimation were not met because an accurate result had been arrived at without estimation, namely using the "internal" profit comparison described above. Even if estimation were proper, the court implied that its "internal" profit comparison would be a superior type of estimation under the circumstances.

The court's reasoning here is dubious. Transactional methods, including the transactional net margin method, are not generally thought of as falling under § 1 (3) AStG.

Secondly – as Borstell and Prick stress – the court held that the data cited by the tax authorities in support of their comparison was inadmissible because it was taken from the tax files of taxpayers not party to the litigation (secret comparables). Direct introduction of the comparative profit information into evidence would entitle the taxpayer to examine its competitor's confidential data and cause the tax authorities and the court to violate the statutory prohibition on divulging information gained in the tax enforcement process. Revealing the information to the court alone would violate a variety of statutory and non-statutory due process considerations. Presentation of only the balance sheets in neutralised or anonymous form, so as to protect the identities of the firms involved, was likewise impermissible, since it was not possible to determine from the balance sheets alone whether the independent firms were truly comparable.

Furthermore, irrespective of the manner in which the non-public information was used, the court stated that it was impossible to determine whether the selection made by the tax authorities was truly representative, there being no way for either the court or the taxpayer to know whether data on other comparable firms had been withheld because it did not serve the tax authorities' case.

The court thus refused to consider confidential data taken from the tax files of taxpayers not party to the litigation. The court also stated that, even had it used the proffered evidence, it would have given the taxpayer the benefit of a certain "safety margin" to take account of the inherent uncertainty of such estimation procedures. The court did not address the use of data taken from public databases because the critical data presented to it was not of this nature.

3. Significance of the decision on secret comparables

In assessing the significance of the case, one must bear in mind that the litigation in question commenced in 1993. Great strides have since been made in compiling public quantitative data on German businesses. It is unclear whether the interim progress is sufficient to permit the tax authorities to assemble adequate comparable profits information from public sources. If not, it would appear to be only a matter of time – a year or two – before this is the case. Hence, even if the decision reported on is not reversed on appeal, it would only postpone the day when the tax authorities will have the – legally admissible – data they need to use comparable profits methods.

Borstell and Prick thus exaggerate when they write that, in Germany, there is "almost no available external data with respect to transactions or companies as a whole" (ITR April 1999, p. 11). Hence, their conclusion that the court's decision constitutes an effective bar to the use of comparable profit methods in Germany also goes too far.

It is true that the legal basis for the collection and publication of such data is not as good as that in, for instance, the United States. Practically speaking, however, Germany has far more independent middle-sized companies (companies which are not members of controlled groups) than does the United States.

Collection of data on these companies has progressed greatly in recent years. Even if data were to be assembled on only a fraction of all such independent companies, the absolute number of German independent companies on which data was available might well exceed the absolute number of independent companies on which data is available in the United States, assuming 100 % data availability there. Naturally, a database which included only a fraction of all German independent companies may not contain a representative sample. However, modern statistical sampling techniques often deliver reliable results using small percentage samples.

Borstell and Prick correctly note that the decision has implications for the anonymous taxpayer data compiled by the tax authorities on royalty fees and other transfer pricing issues (Lizenzgebührenkartei, Betriebsprüfungskartei). Adjustments of profits based solely on these non-public and hence non-verifiable sources are apparently incompatible with the court's holding, although the court does not address this issue specifically.

The decision is also interesting for its questionable treatment of the (external) transactional net margin method as a form of estimation subject to the material requirements of § 1 (3) AStG and for the view that, under this provision, the taxpayer is entitled to the benefit of a certain "safety margin" to take account of the inherent uncertainty of estimation procedures.

4. Outlook

The tax authorities have petitioned the Federal Tax Court to hear an appeal from the lower court's decision. The Federal Tax Court has not yet ruled on this petition, but may be expected to grant it.

5. Research project: University of Freiburg and KPMG Germany

A three-year joint research project on the use of quantitative procedures, including the use of databases and quantitative comparable margin methods, for purposes of transfer pricing analysis was recently announced by the University of Freiburg and KPMG Germany. The results of this study are expected to have direct impact on the treatment of cases like that discussed here, which was approached by all concerned in a largely non-quantitative manner.

A slightly modified version of this article, authored by Alexander Vögele, first appeared in the July/August issue of International Tax Review.

For further information, please send a fax stating your inquiry to KPMG Frankfurt, attn. Christian Looks +49-(0)69-9587-2262 or an e-mail using the button appearing below. Please state your name and organisation in all inquiries.

Disclaimer and Copyright

This article treats the subjects covered in condensed form. It is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter and should not be relied on as a basis for business decisions. Specialist advice must be sought with respect to your individual circumstances. We in particular insist that the tax law and other sources on which the article is based be consulted in the original, whether or not such sources are named in the article. Please note as well that later versions of this article or other articles on related topics may have since appeared on this database or elsewhere and should also be searched for and consulted. While our articles are carefully reviewed, we can accept no responsibility in the event of any inaccuracy or omission. Please note the date of each article and that subsequent related developments are not necessarily reported on in later articles. Any claims nevertheless raised on the basis of this article are subject to German substantive law and, to the extent permissible thereunder, to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. This article is the intellectual property of KPMG Deutsche Treuhand-Gesellschaft AG. Distribution to third persons is prohibited without our express written consent in advance.

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.

 
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”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions