Classic Transfer Pricing Case: Smithkline Beecham Animal Health Inc. v. Canada, 2002 FCA 229

Par Robert Robillard - 1 décembre 2014

Voir le site EN FRANÇAIS

RBRT Inc. Transfer pricing, tax treaties and other international tax matters

Gratte-ciel

In Smithkline Beecham Animal Health Inc. v. Canada, 2002 FCA 229 (CanLII), a Canadian tax court accepts the relevance of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Canadian transfer pricing purposes for the first time. The Federal Court of Appeal wrote:

« [6] To explain the significance of these pleadings, both parties rely on the 1979 OECD Guidelines (Transfer Pricing and Multinational Enterprises: Report of the OECD Committee on Fiscal Affairs (Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1979); there is at least one later edition of the OECD Guidelines, but in terms of the broad propositions to be considered in this case, the differences between the editions may be disregarded.)

[7] The OECD Guidelines are referred to in Information Circular 87-2, International Transfer Pricing and Other International Transactions, dated February 2, 1987, which is intended to advise taxpayers about international pricing issues. Information Circular 87-2 was cancelled on September 27, 1999 and replaced by Information Circular 87-2R, International Transfer Pricing, which also refers to the OECD Guidelines.

[8] It appears to be common ground that the OECD Guidelines inform or should inform the interpretation and application of subsection 69(2) of the Income Tax Act. The OECD Guidelines state the principles for determining international transfer prices and, where possible, the agreement among OECD members with respect to the practices to be followed. According to the OECD Guidelines, there are a number of methods for determining an arm’s length price in the context of international transactions. The method that is said to be in principle the most appropriate and in theory the easiest is the comparable uncontrolled price method, or « CUP » method. In general, the CUP method requires a direct reference to prices in comparable transactions between enterprises that are independent of each other.

[9] The OECD Guidelines also describe a number of other pricing methods that could be used in situations where the CUP method cannot be used. For example, the CUP method cannot be used if reliable information as to comparability cannot be obtained, or the available comparisons result in too many unquantifiable differences. »

To see the full transfer pricing case click here. Aussi disponible en français ici.

Smithkline Beecham Animal Health Inc. v. Canada, 2002 FCA 229 (CanLII)

Smithkline Beecham Animal Health Inc. c. Canada, 2002 CAF 229 (CanLII)

See all the Canadian transfer pricing jurisprudence on RBRT’s jurisprudence page available here.

Robert Robillard, CPA, CGA, MBA, M.Sc. Econ.
Transfer Pricing Chief Economist, RBRT Inc.
514-742-8086; robert.robillard « at » localhost
www.localhost

About RBRT Inc.: click here / (en français ici)

RBRT Inc. is all about transfer pricing. We specialize in transfer pricing, tax treaties and other international tax matters. Our services include transfer pricing documentation (transfer pricing policies and procedures, BEPS and C-doc), transfer pricing dispute resolution, tax treaty matters including double tax relief, tax treaty-based returns and waivers, advanced pricing agreement (APA), value chain management and TP planning, transfer pricing training. The information in this blog post is general information only. Data and information come from sources believed to be reliable but complete accuracy cannot be guaranteed. RBRT Inc. and the author are not responsible or liable for any error, omission or inaccuracy in such information. Readers should seek tax advice and tax counsel from RBRT Inc. as required.