11 April 2024 The   Arcomet Group case   concerns whether transfer pricing (TP) adjustments should be subject to VAT. The Belgian Tax Authorities increased the taxable profits of Arcomet through TP adjustments and argued that these adjustments also constituted payments for services, thereby triggering VAT. The dispute was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which ruled that   TP adjustments are not automatically subject to VAT . The Court held th

June 20, 2024 The Moore v. United States addressed whether Congress may tax certain corporate earnings attributed to shareholders even when those earnings have not been distributed as cash. The dispute centered on the Mandatory Repatriation Tax introduced by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which required U.S. shareholders of certain foreign corporations to pay tax on accumulated profits held offshore. The taxpayers, Charles and Kathleen Moore, held shares in an Indian company that

5 November 2024 The Court of Appeal of England and Wales examined a dispute between Refinitiv group companies and HM Revenue & Customs concerning the application of diverted profits tax to intra-group service arrangements. HMRC issued significant tax assessments, arguing that profits allocated outside the UK did not reflect the arm’s-length principle. Refinitiv contended that its transfer pricing approach was consistent with an earlier Advance Pricing Agreement agreed with HM

11 July 2024 The High Court of Delhi examined a transfer pricing dispute concerning royalty payments made by   Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.   to its Korean parent company under a technology licence agreement. Following a tax audit, the Indian tax authorities disallowed the royalty, characterising Samsung India as a contract manufacturer and concluding that the payments were not at arm’s length. On appeal, Samsung India argued that it operated as a full-fledged licensed

10 December 2025 The   Cour administrative d’appel de Paris   reviewed a transfer pricing dispute concerning the deductibility of intra-group trademark royalty payments made by ArcelorMittal France. Following a tax audit, the French tax authorities disallowed the royalties, concluding that the taxpayer had not demonstrated that the payments reflected an arm’s-length price or generated a measurable economic benefit. On appeal, ArcelorMittal France argued that the royalties wer

21 September 2020 Singapore’s High Court considered whether Intervac Asia Pte Ltd had correctly priced related-party distribution transactions, following transfer pricing adjustments made by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS). IRAS found that Intervac’s resale margins fell below arm’s length benchmarks and applied the resale price method to increase taxable income. The taxpayer argued that adverse market conditions justified its lower margins. The Court upheld I

22 November 2024 Kenya’s Tax Appeals Tribunal reviewed whether Avic International Beijing (EA) Limited correctly used the resale price method to price purchases of completely knocked-down motor vehicle kits from its Chinese affiliate. The taxpayer argued that the RPM was appropriate, but the tax authority applied the transactional net margin method, leading to additional taxable income and a deemed dividend subject to withholding tax. The Tribunal upheld the use of the TNMM,

27 May 2025 Germany’s Constitutional Court examined whether Section 1 of the Foreign Tax Act was constitutionally applied in a dispute involving Timber GmbH & Co. KG. The taxpayer challenged profit adjustments made by the tax authority, arguing that the use of OECD-aligned methods exceeded administrative discretion.   The Court disagreed, holding that the comparable profits and resale price methods were appropriate tools for assessing the arm’s length nature of the company’s

December 2020 Taiwan’s Supreme Administrative Court reviewed a dispute concerning Weitian Technology’s pricing of contract manufacturing services for a foreign affiliate. Tax authorities applied the Cost-Plus Method, asserting that Weitian’s margins fell below independent benchmarks. Although the taxpayer argued that the TNMM was more appropriate due to functional differences, the Court held that Cost-Plus better reflected the economic reality of its limited-risk manufacturin

October 1, 2025 The U.S. Court of Appeals revisited disputes over the valuation of intangible property transferred to foreign affiliates under a cost-sharing arrangement. The IRS contended that 3M understated the value of its intangibles, failing to meet the “commensurate with income” standard of IRC Section 482. The Court upheld the IRS’s income-based valuation, recognizing the use of post-transaction profit evidence to test arm’s length results. By endorsing the IRS’s appro