Denmark vs Accenture: Transfer Pricing Case

DOWNLOAD THE FULL SUMMARY PDF HERE

VIEW THE FULL JUDGMENT HERE


Case Information:

  • Court: Provincial Administrative Court in Łódź
  • Case No: I SA/Łd 592/24
  • Applicant: N Sp. z o.o.
  • Defendant: Director of the Tax Administration Chamber in Łódź
  • Judgment Date: 21 November 2024

Judgment Summary

The Danish Supreme Court rendered its decision in the case of Accenture A/S v. Danish Ministry of Taxation, upholding the lower court’s judgment. The dispute revolved around the transfer pricing arrangements within the Accenture group, particularly concerning cross-border personnel assignments and intellectual property (IP) licensing agreements.

Accenture A/S challenged the Ministry of Taxation’s adjustments to its taxable income for the years 2005–2011, arguing that the arm’s length principle had been correctly applied. Central to the case was a 30% mark-up applied under the International Assignment Agreement (IAA) for cross-border personnel and a 7% royalty rate under the Intellectual Property Licence Agreement.

The Supreme Court upheld the Ministry’s view, finding that the transfer pricing documentation provided by Accenture A/S did not sufficiently substantiate the arm’s length nature of the transactions. The Court placed particular emphasis on the functional and risk analyses, which it deemed inadequate in demonstrating comparability with independent third-party arrangements.

The Court also ruled on the cost-plus methodology adopted for cross-border personnel services and the residual profit split method applied for licensing intellectual property. The Court agreed that the Ministry had acted within its rights to adjust the taxable income of Accenture A/S, given the discrepancies in comparability adjustments and the lack of reliable external benchmarks.

Accenture’s claim for repayment of DKK 1,000,000, paid as costs under the Eastern High Court’s judgment, was also dismissed. This judgment underscores the importance of comprehensive transfer pricing documentation and highlights the Danish tax authorities’ scrutiny of intra-group transactions.

Key Points of the Judgment

1. Background

The Accenture group operates globally, providing IT and consulting services through a network of subsidiaries. These entities collaborate under agreements designed to optimise resource utilisation and ensure seamless delivery of services. Two primary arrangements underpin these operations: the International Assignment Agreement (IAA) for cross-border personnel deployment and the Intellectual Property License Agreement for IP usage.

The IAA facilitates temporary assignments of personnel across borders, enabling entities in need (“Host Countries”) to borrow employees from other group entities (“Home Countries”). The Host Country compensates the Home Country with a 30% cost-plus mark-up. Similarly, the Intellectual Property License Agreement grants group entities the right to utilise proprietary Accenture IP under a 7% royalty rate, calculated on billings to clients.

The Danish Ministry of Taxation audited Accenture A/S, questioning the adequacy of its transfer pricing practices. The Ministry contended that these arrangements did not meet arm’s length standards, resulting in understated taxable income in Denmark for 2005–2011. Consequently, the Ministry made substantial upward adjustments to Accenture A/S’s taxable income and imposed additional taxes and penalties.

Accenture A/S argued that its arrangements adhered to OECD guidelines and were supported by extensive documentation. It maintained that the methodologies used were appropriate and consistent with industry practices, challenging the Ministry’s findings in court.

2. Core Dispute

The central issue in this case was whether Accenture A/S’s transfer pricing arrangements complied with the arm’s length principle as defined under Danish law and OECD guidelines. The Ministry of Taxation’s position was that:

  1. The 30% mark-up applied under the IAA lacked external comparables and failed to reflect the functional and risk allocation between Home and Host Countries.
  2. The 7% royalty rate under the Intellectual Property License Agreement was not supported by robust benchmarking or a detailed analysis of the Danish entity’s contributions to value creation.
  3. The functional analysis in Accenture’s transfer pricing documentation oversimplified the complexity of its operations and did not adequately reflect economic realities.

Accenture A/S defended its transfer pricing policies by arguing that both the cost-plus and residual profit split methods were appropriate for the transactions in question. The company claimed that its methodologies were consistent with the functional profiles of the entities involved and aligned with global best practices. Furthermore, Accenture insisted that the adjustments proposed by the Ministry of Taxation were excessive and did not accurately reflect the group’s operational structure.

Ultimately, the dispute hinged on the adequacy of Accenture’s transfer pricing documentation and the validity of the Ministry’s adjustments to taxable income.

3. Court Findings

The Supreme Court upheld the Ministry of Taxation’s adjustments, citing several deficiencies in Accenture A/S’s transfer pricing practices:

  1. Inadequate Documentation: The Court found that Accenture’s transfer pricing documentation lacked sufficient detail to substantiate its claims. Specifically, the comparability analysis did not adequately address the economic differences between controlled and uncontrolled transactions.
  2. Insufficient Benchmarking: The benchmarks used to justify the 30% cost-plus mark-up and the 7% royalty rate were deemed unreliable. The Court highlighted that Accenture’s documentation relied heavily on internal data, with limited reference to external comparables.
  3. Functional and Risk Mismatch: The functional analysis presented by Accenture was found to be inconsistent with the economic substance of the transactions. For instance, the Court noted that the Danish entity assumed more risks than were reflected in the transfer pricing policies.
  4. Methodological Flaws: While acknowledging that the cost-plus and residual profit split methods are acceptable under OECD guidelines, the Court criticised their application. Adjustments to comparables were insufficient, and key economic factors were overlooked.

The Court concluded that the Ministry’s adjustments were justified, as they better reflected the economic realities of the transactions and ensured compliance with the arm’s length principle.

4. Outcome

The Supreme Court’s decision affirmed the Ministry of Taxation’s adjustments to Accenture A/S’s taxable income for 2005–2011. This decision resulted in additional tax liabilities for the Danish subsidiary, effectively nullifying the group’s transfer pricing arrangements for the audited years.

Key outcomes include:

  1. Rejection of Accenture’s Appeal: The Court dismissed Accenture’s claims that its transfer pricing practices adhered to arm’s length principles. It ruled that the company’s documentation was insufficient to justify its methodologies and rates.
  2. Validation of Ministry’s Adjustments: The Court upheld the Ministry’s revised taxable income calculations, which significantly increased Accenture A/S’s tax liabilities. These adjustments were based on alternative benchmarks and a reallocation of profits between entities.
  3. Dismissal of Cost Reimbursement Claim: Accenture’s demand for repayment of DKK 1,000,000 in legal costs from the Eastern High Court’s proceedings was denied, reinforcing the lower court’s judgment.

This case underscores the Danish tax authorities’ commitment to scrutinising multinational enterprises’ transfer pricing arrangements. It serves as a reminder that robust documentation, backed by reliable external comparables, is crucial for defending transfer pricing practices in audits and litigation.

Transfer Pricing Method Used

The Accenture case prominently featured the application of the cost-plus method and the residual profit split method, both recognised under OECD guidelines. The cost-plus method was used to determine the compensation for cross-border personnel assignments under the IAA. This method calculates the arm’s length price by applying a fixed mark-up (30%) to the direct and indirect costs of providing services.

In contrast, the residual profit split method was employed to allocate profits from the licensing of intellectual property. This method involves allocating routine returns to entities based on benchmarked functions and splitting the residual profit among entities that contribute to non-routine value creation.

The Court found issues with both methods. The cost-plus method’s reliance on internal benchmarks and lack of external comparables undermined its credibility. Similarly, the residual profit split method’s allocation of profits did not adequately reflect the functional and risk profiles of the Danish entity. The Court’s ruling highlights the importance of robust functional analyses and external benchmarking to substantiate transfer pricing methodologies.

Major Issues or Areas of Contention

The case revolved around three primary areas of contention:

  1. Comparability Analysis: Accenture’s transfer pricing documentation lacked sufficient external benchmarks to substantiate the arm’s length nature of its arrangements. This deficiency weakened its position and highlighted the importance of using external comparables that reflect market realities.
  2. Economic Substance: The functional and risk analyses presented by Accenture were inconsistent with the economic realities of its operations. For example, the Danish entity’s contributions were undervalued, and its risks were not accurately reflected in the transfer pricing policies. This misalignment led to questions about the validity of Accenture’s methodologies.
  3. Methodological Application: While the cost-plus and residual profit split methods are recognised under OECD guidelines, their application by Accenture was criticised for lacking sufficient adjustments and reliability. The Court found that Accenture’s documentation did not adequately explain why these methods were chosen over others, nor did it provide sufficient justification for the specific rates applied.

Was This Decision Expected or Controversial?

The decision was largely expected, given recent trends in transfer pricing jurisprudence. Courts and tax authorities worldwide have increasingly scrutinised multinational enterprises’ transfer pricing practices, placing greater emphasis on the economic substance of transactions over their legal form.

This case reflects a broader shift toward stricter enforcement of the arm’s length principle, particularly in jurisdictions like Denmark that align closely with OECD guidelines. The Court’s insistence on robust documentation and reliable external comparables is consistent with global best practices in transfer pricing compliance.

However, the decision could be considered controversial within the business community. Critics argue that the high evidentiary burden placed on taxpayers, particularly in documenting complex intra-group transactions, creates an uneven playing field. Smaller entities, in particular, may lack the resources to meet these stringent requirements.

Despite these concerns, the ruling reinforces the importance of transparency and accountability in transfer pricing practices, signalling to MNEs that robust documentation and adherence to OECD guidelines are non-negotiable.

Significance for Multinationals

This judgment underscores the critical importance of maintaining robust and transparent transfer pricing policies. For multinationals, it signals the need to:

  1. Enhance Documentation Standards: Comprehensive transfer pricing documentation, including detailed functional and comparability analyses, is essential to defend against audits and litigation.
  2. Leverage External Comparables: Reliance on internal data is insufficient. MNEs must ensure their pricing methodologies are supported by reliable external benchmarks that reflect market realities.
  3. Prioritise Economic Substance: Transfer pricing arrangements must align with the economic realities of operations, with particular attention to the functional and risk profiles of each entity involved.

By addressing these areas proactively, MNEs can mitigate the risk of disputes and safeguard their operations against tax adjustments and penalties.

Significance for Revenue Services

For revenue authorities, this case serves as a benchmark for enforcing transfer pricing compliance. Key takeaways include:

  1. Justification of Adjustments: The decision demonstrates the importance of basing transfer pricing adjustments on comprehensive audits and robust benchmarking analyses.
  2. Focus on Economic Substance: Revenue authorities are encouraged to scrutinise the functional and risk analyses presented by taxpayers to ensure they reflect the economic realities of transactions.
  3. Emphasis on Documentation: The ruling highlights the value of detailed and transparent documentation in supporting tax adjustments and defending against appeals.

This case reinforces the role of revenue authorities as gatekeepers of compliance, ensuring that transfer pricing practices align with the arm’s length principle and protect the integrity of national tax bases.


Similar Cases for Review

Coca-Cola vs USA

This US case addressed the allocation of profits between Coca-Cola’s US headquarters and foreign subsidiaries. The IRS argued that Coca-Cola’s transfer pricing methods undervalued the US entity’s contributions. The Tax Court sided with the IRS, emphasising the need for robust functional analyses and reliable benchmarking. The case is similar to Accenture’s in its focus on economic substance and documentation.

Read the full summary here.


Apple vs EU

This landmark EU case examined Apple’s tax arrangements in Ireland. The Commission alleged that Apple’s transfer pricing practices provided an unfair competitive advantage. Although Apple won on appeal, the case underscores the importance of aligning transfer pricing with economic substance and OECD guidelines.

Read the full summary here.


GlaxoSmithKline vs UK

This case addressed transfer pricing issues related to the allocation of profits within Fiat’s Luxembourg-based financing company. The European Commission found that the pricing arrangements did not reflect market conditions, leading to an adjustment of taxable income. The relevance to N Sp. z o.o. lies in the shared theme of ensuring that intercompany transactions are conducted at arm’s length. Both cases highlight the challenges of defending transfer pricing arrangements without robust documentation and adherence to international standards.

Related Articles

Understanding Double Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Guide

*For clarity, the term Double Tax TreatyA Double Taxation Agreement (DTA), also known as a Double Taxation Treaty (or a Tax Treaty), is an international

Emerging Transfer Pricing Trends in Africa: Insights from Dr. Daniel Erasmus at the 13th Annual Africa TP Summit

In this insightful address at the 13th Annual Africa Transfer Pricing Summit, Dr. Daniel N Erasmus explores the most pressing trends in transfer pricing across Africa and developing regions.