Introduction:
The case of South Africa Revenue Service vs ABD Limited (ABD) provides insight on critical aspects of transfer pricing, that resonate beyond South Africa's borders, particularly for Nigeria. This article covers the key takeaways from the case and implications for Nigeria.
Summary of Case:
ABD is a South African telecommunications company with subsidiaries found across the globe in which it serves as the significant shareholder. As part of its operations, it licenses its intellectual property to its subsidiaries in return for which they pay ABD a royalty.
The dispute between ABD and the South African Revenue Service (SARS) revolves around royalty payments from ABD's subsidiaries for the use of its intellectual property. ABD applied a uniform 1% royalty rate to all subsidiaries, which SARS argued was not at arm's length and recommended compensation of 3% on revenue earned as a suitable metric. Both parties referred to OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) guidelines, highlighting the importance of arm's length transactions for fair taxation and trade.
Various experts testified, employing methodologies such as the Transactional Profit Split Method (TPSM) and the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (CUP). ABD's experts used different methods, with some experts relying on TPSM, while others employed CUP, in certain aspects. The consultant contracted by SARS challenged the validity of ABD's valuation methods and proposed alternative approaches.
With all facts considered, the court ruled in favor of ABD rejecting SARS position on the increase of compensation on royalties charged to all the operational subsidiaries. The court held that the 1% charged to the other subsidiaries falls within the arm's length range and therefore satisfied the arm's length principle. Also, the judgement held that SARS lacked sufficient factual justification to adjust the royalty.
Current Practice in Nigeria
In Nigeria, transfer pricing regulations play a crucial role in ensuring fair taxation and preventing tax evasion through the manipulation of prices in transactions between related parties. The Nigerian Transfer Pricing Regulations emphasize that the mere content of contracts is not sufficient to prove that payments for intangible rights, such as royalties, are at arm's length. Instead, the arm's length royalty must consider the functions performed and risks assumed by the licensor in relation to the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection, and exploitation (DEMPE) of the intangible asset.
In a recent audit, a company was scrutinized by the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) on its major cost of sales item which resulted in a reclassification of the item as a royalty payment. The FIRS then went on to make an additional assessment which added back a portion of the cost, as it believed that it cannot be allowable from a transfer pricing perspective concluding that the National Office for Technology Acquisition and Promotion (NOTAP) approval which the company had received would not apply.
Key Takeaways
The recent case of South Africa Revenue Service vs ABD Limited provides several key takeaways for Nigeria in the context of transfer pricing regulations. Firstly, the case underscores the importance of adopting transfer pricing methodologies that align with international standards, such as those outlined in the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (TPG). Nigeria's Transfer Pricing Regulations explicitly references the OECD TPG, emphasizing the need for consistency with global best practices in transfer pricing.
Secondly, the case highlights the significance of scrutinizing royalty payments and ensuring they are at arm's length. The Nigerian Transfer Pricing Regulations introduce a controversial provision that caps tax deductions for payments for the exploitation of intangible rights at 5% of earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA). While this provision aims to align the cost of intellectual property to the benefits derived, it may introduce complexity and uncertainty for taxpayers, particularly those exploiting intellectual property owned by related parties.
Furthermore, the introduction of a cap on tax deductibility of royalty payments raises questions about its legality and alignment with the arm's length principle. The provision may lead to disputes, especially considering existing regulatory caps imposed by the NOTAP on royalty rates. The difference in the basis for determining appropriate compensation for intellectual property between the tax regulation and that of foreign exchange utilization adds another layer of complexity for taxpayers navigating transfer pricing regulations in Nigeria.
Conclusion
The case study reiterates the importance of scrutinizing royalty payments to ensure they reflect arm's length transactions. Nigeria's Transfer Pricing Regulations, particularly the emphasis on functions performed and risks assumed in the DEMPE analysis, align with this principle. However, challenges arise concerning the recent provision capping tax deductions for royalty payments, which may introduce ambiguity and conflicts with arm's length standards.
The FIRS should consider refining the tax deduction cap provision to ensure it aligns with arm's length principles. This could involve revisiting the 5% cap on deductions and adjusting it to reflect market realities while preventing abusive transfer pricing practices. Additionally, offering clearer guidance on navigating the overlap between regulatory caps and tax deduction limits will help taxpayers navigate compliance challenges effectively. Furthermore, enhancing collaboration between tax authorities and industry stakeholders can facilitate a deeper understanding of transfer pricing intricacies and foster more robust regulations that strike a balance between preventing tax evasion and fostering a conducive business environment.
The opinion expressed in this article is solely personal and does not represent the views of any organization or association to which the authors belong
The opinion expressed in this article is solely personal and does not represent the views of any organization or association to which the authors belong.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.