000			01776nab a2200253 c 4500
999			_c142773 _d142773
003			ES-MaIEF
005			20200923135349.0
007			ta
008			200923t2020 ne ||||oo|||| 00| 0|eng d
040			_aES-MaIEF _bspa _cES-MaIEF
041			_aeng
100	1		_963581 _aRaunio, Merja
245		0	_aCase SAC 2020:35 _bSupreme Administrative Court reasserts the prohibition to recharacterize transactions, now in a case that deals with group internal financing _c Merja Raunio and Matti Urpilainen _hElectrónico
260			_c2020
500			_aDisponible únicamente en formato electrónico.
500			_aResumen.
520			_aThe Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) held in a previous case, SAC 2014:119, that the Finnish domestic arm’s length provision (section 31 of the Act on the Tax Assessment Procedure) does not give the Finnish tax administration legal competence to recharacterize transactions as meant in paragraphs 1.64 and 1.65 of the 2010 OECD Guidelines. Case SAC 2020:35 confirms the SAC’s earlier position: there are certain fundamental private law legal forms and structures that cannot be disregarded by applying section 31 of the AAP. The SAC found that the transfer pricing analysis must depart from the fact that the Belgian subsidiary company providing intra-group financing legally owns the intra-group receivables and, thus, it has acted in the capacity of a creditor. The tax administration had the obligation to set tax consequences accordingly.
650		4	_948095 _aPRECIOS DE TRANSFERENCIA
650		4	_944296 _aFINLANDIA
650		4	_aJURISPRUDENCIA _947570
700	1		_967195 _aUrpilainen, Matti
773	0		_9163276 _oITPJ/2020/5 _tInternational Transfer Pricing Journal _w(IEF)65014 _x 1385-3074 _gv. 27, n. 5, 2020
942			_cRE