Case SAC 2021:66 on group internal financing electrónico Supreme Administrative Court provides lessons on how the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines should and should not be used Merja Raunio and Matti Urpilainen
By: Raunio, Merja
.
Contributor(s): Urpilainen, Matti.
Material type: 
ArticlePublisher: 2021Subject(s): PRECIOS DE TRANSFERENCIA | GRUPOS DE EMPRESAS | SUCURSALES | FINANCIACION | FINLANDIA | JURISPRUDENCIA
In:
International Transfer Pricing Journal v. 28, n. 5, 2021Summary: In case SAC 2021:66, the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court held that the cost-plus method was the most suitable method in a setting where a Finnish parent company provided centralized financing to its foreign subsidiaries. This article analyses how the Court’s approach and the outcome of the case align with the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and with the Court’s earlier case law on group internal financing. It also discusses the problems that may arise if the courts, instead of practical and tailor-made reasoning, give the text of the OECD Guidelines a law-like role.
| Item type | Current location | Home library | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recursos electrónicos | IEF | IEF | ITPJ/2021/5-4 (Browse shelf) | Available | ITPJ/2021/5-4 |
Browsing IEF Shelves Close shelf browser
Disponible únicamente en formato electrónico.
Resumen.
In case SAC 2021:66, the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court held that the cost-plus method was the most suitable method in a setting where a Finnish parent company provided centralized financing to its foreign subsidiaries. This article analyses how the Court’s approach and the outcome of the case align with the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and with the Court’s earlier case law on group internal financing. It also discusses the problems that may arise if the courts, instead of practical and tailor-made reasoning, give the text of the OECD Guidelines a law-like role.
Click on an image to view it in the image viewer
There are no comments for this item.