Pakistan vs Interquest Informatics: TRANSFER PRICING CASE

DOWNLOAD THE FULL SUMMARY PDF HERE

VIEW THE FULL JUDGMENT HERE


Case Information:

  • Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
  • Case No: Civil Review Petitions No. 988–1001/2023
  • Applicant: Interquest Informatics Services
  • Defendant: The Commissioner of Income Tax
  • Judgment Date: 28 November 2024

Judgment Summary

The case revolves around the taxation treatment of receipts received by Interquest Informatics Services, a Netherlands-incorporated company, under agreements with Schlumberger Seaco, Inc., operating in Pakistan. Interquest claimed the receipts as “business profits,” invoking Article 7 of the Netherlands-Pakistan Double Taxation Convention (DTT) to exempt them from Pakistani taxation. However, the Pakistani tax authorities treated these as “royalties” under Article 12, subjecting them to a 15% income tax.

The case passed through the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the tax authority’s stance. The Sindh High Court subsequently ruled in Interquest’s favour, asserting that the receipts were not royalties. However, in 2023, a Supreme Court majority judgment overturned the High Court’s ruling, reinstating the Tribunal’s decision. The present review petition challenges this majority judgment, highlighting errors in fact and law.

The review petition argued that the Supreme Court erroneously dismissed the High Court’s jurisdiction in addressing questions of law and misinterpreted critical treaty provisions. The review Bench examined these claims and identified several errors apparent on the record. These included misjudgments about alternate remedies under the DTT, an erroneous assumption of material facts regarding receipts’ nature, and reliance on a stricter interpretation of the treaty’s “royalties” clause.

The Bench ruled in favour of the petitioner, overturning the majority judgment. It concluded that the receipts were “business profits,” not taxable as “royalties” under Pakistani law. This decision reinstates the High Court’s earlier ruling, emphasizing the dynamic interpretation of DTTs to promote equitable international tax practices.

Key Points of the Judgment

1. Background

Interquest Informatics Services entered into agreements with Schlumberger Seaco, Inc., a company operating in Pakistan, to lease FLIC tapes and provide software rental services. The agreements, executed in 1986 and 1995, outlined payments made to Interquest for the use of these tapes. Interquest classified these receipts as business profits and sought exemption from tax in Pakistan under Article 7 of the Netherlands-Pakistan DTT.

The tax authorities, however, disagreed with this classification. They argued that the receipts fell under the definition of royalties as outlined in Article 12 of the treaty. Consequently, the income was subjected to a 15% withholding tax.

This disagreement led to a series of legal challenges. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and tax officers upheld the classification of the income as royalties, but the Sindh High Court reversed these decisions. The Court held that the payments were business profits and not subject to taxation in Pakistan under the DTT.

The revenue authority appealed to the Supreme Court, which issued a majority judgment overturning the High Court’s decision. It reinstated the Tribunal’s ruling, a decision that prompted Interquest to file the present review petition, alleging errors in the interpretation of treaty provisions and procedural missteps.

2. Core Dispute

The fundamental issue in this case revolved around the classification of payments made by Schlumberger Seaco, Inc. to Interquest Informatics Services under two agreements: one for the lease of FLIC tapes and another for software rental. The tax authorities in Pakistan classified these payments as “royalties” under Article 12 of the Netherlands-Pakistan Double Taxation Convention (DTT), subject to a 15% withholding tax. Interquest contended that these payments were instead “business profits,” exempt from taxation under Article 7 of the treaty, as the company did not maintain a permanent establishment (PE) in Pakistan.

A major point of contention arose from the interpretation of the term “royalties” within the DTT. Pakistani authorities relied on the broader definition provided under the UN Model Tax Convention, which included payments for “information concerning industrial, commercial, or scientific experience.” Interquest argued that this clause was inapplicable as the payments were for operational use of software, not for the transfer of intellectual property rights or proprietary knowledge.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Sindh High Court faced conflicting interpretations of the agreements and treaty provisions. The Tribunal upheld the tax authorities’ stance, while the High Court sided with Interquest, ruling that the payments were not royalties. The Supreme Court initially overturned the High Court’s decision in a majority judgment but later reconsidered its stance in the present review. The dispute highlights the complexities of treaty interpretation in cross-border transactions and the significance of precise contractual language.

3. Court Findings

The Supreme Court’s review Bench identified critical errors in the majority judgment, focusing on procedural missteps and misinterpretations of the treaty. The Bench found that the majority judgment failed to address the questions of law referred by the Tribunal and misclassified the payments as royalties.

First, the Bench criticised the reliance on the UN Model Tax Convention’s broader definition of royalties, noting that the specific circumstances of the case did not align with this framework. The payments for leasing FLIC tapes and software rental were operational in nature, not payments for intellectual property or proprietary knowledge. This misclassification overlooked the evidence and contravened principles of treaty interpretation.

Second, the Bench emphasised the procedural misapplication of alternate remedies under the treaty, such as the mutual agreement procedure (MAP). The majority judgment incorrectly suggested that the availability of alternate remedies diminished the High Court’s jurisdiction to address legal questions. The review Bench clarified that the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court is distinct and cannot be supplanted by alternate remedies.

Lastly, the review judgment highlighted the importance of dynamic treaty interpretation. Courts must consider the object and purpose of tax treaties, promoting international cooperation while safeguarding national tax bases. The review Bench concluded that the payments were “business profits,” exempt from taxation under Article 7 of the DTT, thereby reinstating the High Court’s ruling.

This outcome underscored the need for balanced interpretations and adherence to procedural norms, providing clarity for similar future disputes.

4. Outcome

The Supreme Court’s review Bench overturned its previous majority judgment, reinstating the Sindh High Court’s decision. The review concluded that the payments received by Interquest Informatics Services were “business profits,” not “royalties,” as initially classified by the tax authorities. Consequently, these payments were exempt from taxation under Article 7 of the Netherlands-Pakistan DTT.

Key findings included:

  1. The payments were operational in nature, not related to intellectual property or proprietary knowledge, and thus fell outside the treaty’s definition of royalties.
  2. The High Court’s jurisdiction to address Tribunal-referred questions of law was valid and necessary. Alternate remedies under the treaty, such as MAP, did not diminish this jurisdiction.
  3. Dynamic treaty interpretation is essential, balancing the object and purpose of international tax treaties with the need to prevent double taxation and economic distortions.

For Interquest, the ruling eliminated the 15% withholding tax liability, affirming the company’s position. For Pakistani revenue authorities, the judgment highlighted the importance of precise treaty application and adherence to procedural norms.

The outcome carries broader implications for cross-border taxation. It reinforces the principle that income classification must align with the substantive nature of transactions and treaty provisions. The judgment serves as a precedent for future disputes, promoting equitable taxation and fostering international cooperation.

Transfer Pricing Method Used

Although this case primarily involved treaty interpretation rather than direct transfer pricing (TP) application, the underlying principles reflect key TP concepts, particularly regarding income classification and economic substance. The tax authorities’ classification of payments as royalties mirrors challenges often faced in applying the transactional net margin method (TNMM) or other TP methods.

In TP disputes, accurate delineation of transactions is critical. Here, the authorities argued that payments under the agreements fell within the definition of royalties, akin to disputes over royalty and service payments under TP frameworks. The classification relied heavily on the agreements’ wording, demonstrating the importance of precise and unambiguous documentation—a core TP principle.

The case also illustrates the overlap between TP and treaty disputes. Had the agreements explicitly detailed the nature of payments as operational rather than involving intellectual property, the classification might have been less contentious. This aligns with TP best practices, where robust intercompany agreements reduce the likelihood of misclassification and disputes.

The review judgment highlights the need for consistent application of economic substance principles across both TP and treaty contexts. For multinationals, this means ensuring that transactional documentation aligns with treaty provisions and arm’s length principles. For revenue authorities, it emphasises adopting nuanced approaches to classification and ensuring that treaty interpretations align with global TP standards.

Major Issues or Areas of Contention

The dispute presented several contentious issues, primarily centred on treaty interpretation and procedural matters:

  1. Treaty Interpretation: The classification of payments as royalties was based on an expansive interpretation of the term under the UN Model Tax Convention. Interquest argued that the payments were operational, falling outside the treaty’s definition.
  2. Jurisdictional Disputes: The majority judgment incorrectly dismissed the High Court’s jurisdiction to address Tribunal-referred questions of law. This procedural error became a focal point in the review.
  3. Misclassification of Income: The tax authorities’ reliance on the broader UN Model definition of royalties ignored the narrower scope of the OECD Model, leading to incorrect classification.
  4. Alternate Remedies: The majority judgment placed undue emphasis on the availability of alternate remedies under the treaty, such as MAP, which detracted from the substantive legal issues.
  5. Dynamic Interpretation: The majority judgment’s rigid approach to treaty provisions conflicted with principles of dynamic interpretation, which aim to balance tax rights between source and residence countries.

These issues underscore the complexities of cross-border taxation, particularly when treaty provisions and domestic tax laws intersect.

Was This Decision Expected or Controversial?

The majority judgment issued in 2023 was controversial for several reasons. It adopted a rigid and expansive interpretation of the Double Taxation Treaty (DTT) provisions, particularly the classification of payments under the term “royalties.” This approach diverged from established global norms, creating uncertainty for multinational enterprises (MNEs) operating in Pakistan.

The judgment placed significant emphasis on the UN Model Tax Convention, which includes broader definitions of royalties, rather than the OECD Model, which offers a narrower and more widely accepted framework. This reliance on the UN Model led to the misclassification of payments for operational use as royalties, contradicting the economic realities of the transactions.

The decision also attracted criticism for procedural shortcomings. By dismissing the Sindh High Court’s jurisdiction to address questions of law referred by the Tribunal, the majority judgment ignored established procedural norms. This disregard for appellate oversight created a perception of judicial overreach, undermining confidence in the legal process.

Furthermore, the emphasis on alternate remedies under the treaty, such as the mutual agreement procedure (MAP), was viewed as an unnecessary diversion from the substantive legal issues. This approach risked setting a precedent that could dissuade courts from addressing complex treaty disputes directly.

The review judgment rectified these errors, bringing the decision in line with global best practices. It underscored the importance of dynamic treaty interpretation and procedural integrity, reaffirming the High Court’s ruling. While the controversy surrounding the original judgment raised concerns about judicial consistency, the review decision restored clarity and fairness, reinforcing the importance of equitable taxation principles in cross-border disputes.

Significance for Multinationals

For multinational enterprises (MNEs), the Pakistan vs. Interquest Informatics case underscores the critical need for precise documentation and robust compliance with double taxation treaties (DTTs). The central dispute over income classification highlights the challenges MNEs face when dealing with jurisdictions that adopt expansive interpretations of treaty provisions.

This case demonstrates the importance of understanding the interplay between local tax regulations and international treaties. Payments that are operational in nature must be clearly documented to avoid misclassification as royalties or other taxable categories. Ambiguities in agreements can lead to significant tax liabilities, as seen in this case, where a 15% withholding tax was imposed due to the authorities’ interpretation.

Moreover, the judgment serves as a reminder that tax disputes often hinge on procedural nuances. MNEs must ensure that legal counsel addresses all relevant procedural and substantive issues during litigation. Engaging with transfer pricing and tax treaty experts can provide MNEs with the necessary guidance to navigate complex treaty frameworks.

The review decision also highlights the broader implications of rigid treaty interpretations. MNEs must proactively manage their global tax risk by implementing internal controls and processes that align with international best practices. This includes periodic reviews of intercompany agreements, ensuring compliance with both domestic and international tax regulations.

Ultimately, the case reinforces the need for multinationals to adopt a proactive approach to tax compliance, emphasising the importance of clarity, consistency, and collaboration with tax experts to avoid disputes and optimise global tax efficiency.

Significance for Revenue Services

For revenue authorities, the Pakistan vs. Interquest Informatics case offers critical insights into the balance between safeguarding national tax bases and fostering international economic cooperation. The case serves as a cautionary tale about the potential consequences of overly aggressive interpretations of double taxation treaties (DTTs).

The authorities’ classification of operational payments as royalties reflected a narrow focus on immediate revenue generation at the expense of treaty principles. This approach risked undermining investor confidence, as inconsistent treaty application can create uncertainty for multinationals operating in the country. The review judgment corrected this misstep, reaffirming the need for nuanced and equitable treaty interpretations.

The case also highlights the importance of procedural adherence in tax disputes. The majority judgment’s dismissal of the High Court’s jurisdiction to address Tribunal-referred questions was deemed a procedural error, emphasising the role of appellate oversight in ensuring fair outcomes.

Revenue authorities must align their practices with international tax norms to promote economic collaboration. Misclassifications or overreach in treaty interpretation can discourage foreign investment, particularly in developing economies that rely on cross-border trade and investment to drive growth.

Additionally, the case underscores the need for tax authorities to prioritise capacity building and training in treaty interpretation and transfer pricing principles. Developing expertise in these areas can enhance the effectiveness of tax administration, reducing disputes and fostering a more predictable tax environment.

The judgment serves as a reminder that equitable taxation practices not only support revenue generation but also contribute to a stable and attractive investment climate, benefiting the broader economy.


Similar Cases for Review

Google Ireland vs Ireland

This is an unreported case.

The Google Ireland case focused on the classification of advertising revenues under the provisions of Irish tax law and double taxation treaties (DTTs). The Irish tax authorities treated payments received by Google from advertisers as royalties, subject to withholding tax, arguing that they constituted payments for accessing intellectual property embedded in Google’s advertising platforms. Google contended that these revenues were operational payments representing business profits, which were exempt under the treaty since it did not have a permanent establishment (PE) in the taxing jurisdiction

This dispute parallels Pakistan vs. Interquest Informatics as both involved the classification of cross-border payments under DTT provisions, with tax authorities adopting an expansive interpretation of “royalties” to increase tax revenue. In both cases, the companies argued that the payments were business profits, exempt from withholding tax. The outcomes of these cases stress the importance of precise income classification based on the substance of transactions rather than the form, aligning with the review Bench’s emphasis on dynamic treaty interpretation.


GlaxoSmithKline vs USA

In GlaxoSmithKline Holdings (Americas) Inc. v. Commissioner, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) challenged GSK’s intercompany pricing arrangements, alleging they undervalued U.S. taxable income and failed to adhere to the arm’s length principle. GSK argued that its pricing practices were consistent with international standards and appropriately allocated income between its U.S. and U.K. entities.

This case relates to Interquest Informatics as both involve disputes over the classification of payments and the economic substance of transactions. While GSK focused on transfer pricing and arm’s length principles, Interquest addressed the distinction between royalties and operational income under a double taxation treaty. Both cases highlight the need for robust documentation to delineate the nature of payments and ensure compliance with international tax laws.


GlaxoSmithKline vs UK

This case is analogous to Interquest Informatics as it dealt with income classification disputes and the role of the arm’s length principle in determining the nature of payments. Both cases emphasised the importance of aligning transactional terms with treaty definitions and transfer pricing norms. While GlaxoSmithKline highlighted the overlap between transfer pricing and treaty disputes, it also reinforced the need for consistency in applying treaty provisions and ensuring that documentation reflects the true economic nature of transactions. Similarly, in Interquest, clear contractual terms could have avoided the misclassification of payments.

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

S.Africa: Summary of the Davis Tax Committee’s BEPS Sub-committee General Report released December 2014

Summary of the Davis Tax Committee’s BEPS Sub-committee General Report released December 2014 by Peter Dachs of ENS Introduction This note provides a summary of