Maruti Suzuki Indian V. India Transfer Pricing Office.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Fashion Boutique v. Fendi USA The case of improper evidence supporting plaintiffs claims and their subsequent appeal of District Courts decision.
Advertisements

C&A v. G-Star. Overview After a verdict by the Dutch court on 9 August 2011, fashion brand C&A was ordered to cease large-scale infringements of the trade.
Christian Louboutin v. Yves Saint Laurent. In April 2011, footwear designer Christian Louboutin filed a suit against luxury design house Yves Saint Laurent,
1 Forms of International Business Trade International licensing of technology and intellectual property (trademarks, patents and copyrights) Foreign direct.
PAVAN R. SOMANI B.Com, ACA, & Grad. CWA Hingoli 1 PAVAN SOMANI B.Com, ACA, & Grad. CWA HINGOLI.
Excalibur Bakery V. Excellent Bakery The case of invalid trademark.
Mirror Worlds v. Apple. In 2008, the technology company Mirror Worlds, LLC filed suit against Apple, Inc. for patent infringement in the US District Court.
Alberta printed circuits v. Canada Revenue Agency.
Daily Grind Case Daily Grind, Inc. (“Daily Grind”), a public company, manufactures and distributes branded personal organizers for sale in its company-operated.
Vodafone Group Plc. v. Indian tax authorities. In 2007 Vodafone International purchased the Indian mobile telephony assets of Hong Kong-based Hutchison.
Burger King Corporation v. C.R. Weaver; M-W-M, Inc.
WTO Dispute DS362 China vs. United States
Brian Andreas v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.. In 1994 Andreas, an artist, created an image that included the words, “most people don’t know that there.
International Taxation and Transfer Pricing Conference February 17, 2007 Case Studies on Transfer Pricing Samir Gandhi.
Endemol v. Abbot Reif Hameiri. The Dutch international television production and distribution company “Endemol” has filed a lawsuit against Israeli production.
Balance Dynamics Corporation v. Schmitt Industries, Incorporated.
™ Transfer Pricing Audit Management Transfer Pricing Associates Steef Huibregtse and Richard Slimmen 13 April 2012 FINANCE AND STRATEGY PRACTICE Tax Director.
Understand the role of business in the global economy.
Concepts in Federal Taxation Chapter 3: Income Sources
Chapter 6: Measuring Brand Equity. Contents Need for measuring brand equity Methods of measuring brand equity Financial measures Customer based measures.
Additions to the Price Paid. Content Price Paid or Payable Additions Additions - Category 1 Additions - Brokerage Expenses Additions - Commissions Commissions/Buying.
IP News 指導老師:李柏靜 學生:黃馨葦 M /3/26.  Citing the high cost of one of the pharmaceutical industry's expensive new cancer drugs, India's patent.
1 Audit | Tax | Advisory 17 April 2012, WTC Amsterdam Audit | Tax | Advisory The Expatcenter Meets.
Business Taxation Anderson: The Corporate Income Tax.
LICENSING & FRANCHISING Silvia Aguilar Eduard Morales Mateo Villa.
BUSINESS VENTURE VALUATION. ALTERNATIVES FOR BUYING EXISTING BUSINESS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES.
Profit and loss accounts. What does it show? Summarises all income and expenditure for a year I.e. the difference between the payments a business make.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 11 International Transfer Pricing.
Accounting and Tax system in Japan. CEO / Yasunari Kuno & Company Profile CEO/ Yasunari Kuno - Japanese CPA Born in Aichi Prefecture 1989 Graduated.
Transfer Pricing – Risk and Opportunities David Slemmer, CohnReznick New York, New York June 6, 2014.
Mattel, Inc. V. MGA Entertainment, Inc.. In 2004, MGA Entertainment’s Bratz range of dolls emerged on the market, they presented severe competition to.
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) v. Canada revenue agency (CRA)
Cambrige University Press et al. V. Georgia State Univeristy.
Temple Island Collection V. New English Teas The case of photograph infringement.
DHL Corporation and Subsidiaries V. Commissioner
Business Organization Honors Finance Introduction.
YOUR RELIABLE PARTNER. “Taxation of intellectual property, research & development in Russian Federation”
© 2005 West Legal Studies in Business, a division of Thompson Learning. All Rights Reserved.1 PowerPoint Slides to Accompany The Legal, Ethical, and International.
Managing the Multinational Financial System
International exchange of scientific - technical knowledge 1.
Caraco Pharmaceuticals Vs. Novo Nordisk The case of unclear and unfair patenting of generic drugs.
Arlington Industies, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.
BSR & Co. Recent Developments And Case Studies On International Taxation Hitesh Gajaria – Chartered Accountant 13 January 2007 Tax.
 The Free Enterprise System encourages individuals to start and operate their own businesses with little to no government involvement.
Maximizing Intangible Benefits from IPRs protection to Exploitation of IPRs: Business Strategies based on Franchising and /or Merchandising Avv. Fabrizio.
Chapter 12 Pricing Decisions – Chapter 12Andrew P. Yap - FIU – MAR 4156 Basic Pricing Concepts Basic pricing considerations global marketing 1.Does.
Shonda Brown, et al. v. Ruallam Enterprises, Inc..
Why Planning is Important Irwin/McGraw-Hill Marketing Planning u The process of— (1) selecting a target market, and (2) developing a marketing mix to.
UNIT-5 DIVISIBLE PROFITS&DIVIDENDS INVESTIGATION
Veritas v. Commissioner. In November 1999, Veritas Software Corp. (Veritas US – now prt of Symantec Corp.) and its wholly owned foreign subsidiary Veritas.
The A – Brand Value contribution to a brand by the licensee – solution proposal Markus Volkmann Federal Central Tax Office / Federal Audit Department OECD.
ENTERING FOREIGN MARKETS FRANCHISING LICENSING EXPORTING MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTEMENT.
UNECE April 2009 Commercialization of IPR A Business Perspective Jason Bucha, Compliance Counsel April 2, 2009.
Principles of Business, Marketing, and Finance Financial Planning Copyright © Texas Education, All rights reserved.
Plenary 1 Taxation of Intra-group Services Japan May 12, 2016 TMI Associates (Japan) Partner Attorney-at-law, Certified Public Tax Accountant Nobuaki Iwashina.
Centre for Tax Policy and Administration Case Study on Profit Split / Intangibles Workshop on Transfer Pricing and Exchange of Information Guatemala 2.
Characteristics of Special Purpose Entities in Measures of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad Dylan G. Rassier Prepared for the Allied Social Science.
Korean Embassy Transfer Pricing Seminar TRANSFER PRICING SERVICES 4 March 2011.
International Business I Prepared by:NOR DIANA AMERI ( )
Google v. Louis Vuitton. Louis Vuitton, which is part of the LVMH group of brands including Moet & Chandon and Dior, had argued that Google was acting.
By Cindy Ravalo $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400.
Taxation of Intra-group Services in Korea Yoon OH.
IPR in Financial Markets
Tested Party: Concept vs. Reality
Customer Care No All you need to know about the marketing intangibles in Transfer Pricing
Bell Ringer Why is it important to save money?
Organizational Structures of Maruti Suzuki & Tata Motors
Outline Definition and common types of intangible assets
Royalty Structure Technical Assistance Structure Financing Structure
A Presentation on What the Heck Licensing Agreements are
Presentation transcript:

Maruti Suzuki Indian V. India Transfer Pricing Office

Suzuki Royalty TP case –Facts  Maruti Suzuki Motor Corporation (“Suzuki”), a Japanese company, owned over 50% of Maruti Suzuki India (“Maruti”), an Indian company.  Suzuki licensed the brand and technical know-how to Maruti to use it in India, in return, Maruti paid Suziki a lump-sum royalty and royalties based on the FOB value of certain components that Maruti will use to manufacture using the technology provided by Suzuki.  Suzuki didn’t have to make any payment to Maruti  India’s tax authority (TPO) stated that Maruti should be compensated for use of the Suzuki brand on the Maruti automobiles  High Court of Delhi found in favor of the defendant Maruti and rejected the TPO’s arguments

The Arguments Taxpayer's Arguments: Maruti asserted that there had been no transfer of the Maruti brand Maruti argued that by using Suzuki’s trademark it had received a large benefit while Suzuki received no benefit. Maruti demonstrated that its advertising expenses over the 13 years were commensurate with comparable companies’ advertising expenses and its royalty-to sales ratio was lower than other companies Tax Authority's Arguments: The use of the Suzuki brand on Maruti automobiles effectively constituted the sale of the Maruti brand to Suzuki Maruti was owed an arm’s-length royalty for the piggybacking, use of the Maruti brand on the co-branded trademark “Maruti Suzuki,” and impairment of the Maruti brand.

High Court of Delhi Decision High Court of Delhi stated that the use of the Maruti name was within the discretion of Maruti and not granted to Suzuki or contained in any legal agreement The court also found that Maruti was justified in entering into the License Agreement and paying an appropriate royalty to Suzuki for the use of its trademark

Implications This case illustrates the Indian tax authorities' application of marketing intangibles and the application of international standards Maruti Suzuki suggests the increasing attention from tax authorities over the value of marketing intangibles This case demonstrates what data should be used for benchmarking when dealing with India tax authority

About IPR Plaza IPR Plaza is a web-based platform that bridges the gap between IP law, accounting, tax, transfer pricing and valuation by providing general and profession-specific information on intangibles, as well as, quantifiable valuation models. IPR Plaza is empowered by different leading IP advisory firms. IPR Plaza is headquartered in the Netherlands with representation in other major countries.