SWITZERLAND Trends and Developments Contributed by: René Matteotti, Monika Bieri, Daniel Schönenberger and Manuel Ulrich, Tax Partner AG
for International Finance (SIF) – in the conduct of mutual agreement procedures (MAP) or advance pricing agreement (APA) cases, where transfer pricing analyses remain governed by applicable treaty obliga - tions and internationally accepted standards. Profitability Management: Recent Administrative Court of Canton Zug Decision of 5 December 2024 (Case A 2023/1, Final Judgment) Summary The Administrative Court of Zug has clarified that the profit margin of a group company cannot be averaged over several years to reduce the tax burden for the current year. The court ruled that each tax year must be assessed independently and that taxpayers have no right to retroactively offset alleged over-taxation from previous years Background At the centre of the dispute is a legal entity head - quartered in the Canton of Zug that belongs to an international pharmaceutical group and has been act - ing as a limited risk distributor since 2018. In its 2018 tax return, the company reported a negative operating margin of minus 21.8%. To defend this result, the tax - payer argued that a three-year average from 2016 to 2018 offered a more accurate picture of its economic performance. A year-end adjustment in 2018 com - pensated for the excessive profits of previous years, resulting in an average margin of 1.2% over three years. This margin is within the interquartile range in a multi-year comparison. Position of the tax authority The cantonal tax administration rejected the year- end adjustment, arguing that the 2018 margin did not comply with the arm’s length principle and could not be justified by multi-year averaging. For the 2018 fiscal year, it applied a margin of 1.1%, correspond - ing to the lowest value in the interquartile range of a benchmarking study prepared for the taxpayer. This adjustment increased the taxable profit by approxi -
ing margins over 2016–2018 justified the 2018 result and provided a more complete view of the company’s performance, noting that margins in previous years had been excessively high and therefore warranted a
correction in 2018. Court’s reasoning
The Administrative Court of Zug rejected the tax - payer’s arguments, emphasising the Swiss princi - ple of periodicity, which requires each tax year to be assessed independently. Multi-year smoothing is impermissible, particularly in the absence of excep - tional circumstances that could explain the 2018 loss. According to the court decision, every business entity must be taxed on the economic value it gener - ates each year. It is not permitted to offset a negative annual result by averaging it with prior positive years. Implications for transfer pricing practice The court decision reinforces the central role of the periodicity principle in Swiss tax law. High margins in earlier years cannot later be flattened through adjust - ments, even if supported by transfer pricing studies based on multi-year data. Companies operating in Switzerland should ensure that all IC transactions are priced in accordance with the arm’s length principle and that the results for each financial year reflect the financial performance for that year. In light of this decision, the question arises to what extent the competent authority may continue to rely on multi-year comparisons in the context of MAPs or APA cases. While the Administrative Court’s strict application of the Swiss principle of periodicity limits the permissibility of multi-year averaging in domes - tic proceedings, it should be recalled that final and binding court decisions do not, as such, curtail the negotiating discretion of the Swiss competent author - ity – namely, the SIF – in MAP or APA negotiations. In cross-border cases governed by double tax trea - ties, the competent authority operates within a treaty-based framework and must seek a resolution consistent with the applicable treaty provisions and internationally recognised standards. In this context, multi-year data may continue to be taken into con - sideration where appropriate under the arm’s length principle as reflected in the OECD TPG. The present
mately CHF9 million. Taxpayer’s arguments
Before the court, the taxpayer invoked the OECD TPG, which allow the use of multi-year data to deter - mine arm’s length prices. It contended that smooth -
270 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook