Rechtbank Noord-Holland, 15-12-2023, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2023:12635, AWB - 20_4350

De navorderingsaanslag 2013 is met de volgende correcties opgelegd.

2013

Belastbaar bedrag primitieve aanslag € 100.670.397

- [bedrijf 3] -exit overdrachtswinst € 2.750.000.000

Vastgesteld belastbaar bedrag bij navordering € 2.850.670.397

2014 2015 2016

Aangegeven belastbaar bedrag - 1.250.374 - 7.226.475 - 282.460.000

Jaar Correctie Ambtshalve vermindering Rest correctie niet in geschil

2012 € 59.912 € 36.379 € 23.533

2013 € 732.934 € 732.934 -

2014 € 163.467 - € 163.467

2015 € 266.000 - € 266.000

2016 € 147.000 - € 147.000

Totaal € 1.369.313 € 769.313 € 600.000

Bij de aanslag vpb 2014 is een vergrijpboete opgelegd die als volgt is samengesteld:

Boete correctie factoring fees € 348.240 (50%)

Boete correctie [bedrijf 6] € 1.266.469 (25%)

Totaal € 1.614.709

Het voornemen voor het opleggen van deze boete is aangekondigd op 7 april 2016.

Bij de aanslag vpb 2015 is een vergrijpboete opgelegd die als volgt is samengesteld:

Boete correctie factoring fees € 353.205 (50%)

Boete correctie [bedrijf 6] € 10.000 (na matiging)

Totaal € 363.205

Het voornemen voor het opleggen van deze boete is aangekondigd op 7 april 2016.

Boete correctie factoring fees € 165.082 (50%)

Boete correctie [bedrijf 6] € 10.000 (na matiging)

Boete correctie [bedrijf 3] € 125.000.000 (50% van grondslag 250 mio)

Totaal € 125.175.082

Het voornemen voor het opleggen van deze boete is aangekondigd op 13 maart 2020.

In een memorandum van [bedrijf 9] (hierna tezamen met haar rechtsopvolgers aangeduid als: [bedrijf 9] ) van 10 oktober 1995 is over de wijze waarop de door [bedrijf 7] in rekening te brengen factoring fee kan worden bepaald vermeld, voor zover van belang:

“8. Credit limits management[bedrijf 7] would advise on the acceptable credit limits per client for a fee. However, this activity has already been performed in the past by [bedrijf 7] for a cost plus 8% charge (…).”

De dienstverlening door [bedrijf 7] aan [bedrijf 8] vond in de onderhavige jaren plaats op basis van een op 23 juni 1999 ondertekende overeenkomst, ‘Receivables Purchase Agreement’ (hierna: RPA overeenkomst). Deze overeenkomst voorzag er kort gezegd in dat [bedrijf 8] haar vorderingen op afnemers op het moment van ontstaan overdroeg aan [bedrijf 7] , waarna deze zorg droeg voor de incasso en de administratie ten behoeve van deze

vorderingen. [bedrijf 7] heeft haar factoringdiensten op grond van een per 1 oktober 2007 gesloten overeenkomst onder dezelfde voorwaarden aan [bedrijf 5] verleend. De factoring door [bedrijf 7] aan [bedrijf 8] en [bedrijf 5] vond plaats zonder voorfinanciering. [bedrijf 7] betaalde [bedrijf 8] en [bedrijf 5] op het moment dat de betaling van de klant was ontvangen, maar uiterlijk op de vervaldatum van de vordering. Klanten betaalden [bedrijf 7] op de [land 2] bankrekening van [bedrijf 7] . Het kredietrisico werd overgenomen door [bedrijf 7] . Onder omstandigheden kon het kredietrisico achterblijven (recourse factoring). Artikel 7 (d) van de RPA overeenkomst bepaalt in dit verband, voor zover van belang:

“In case Receivables against a new debtor are transferred, when Scheduled Receivables against a debtor have remained unpaid in full or in part more than 6 months after its due date, or when outstanding Scheduled Receivables against a debtor exceed € 3 million (or the equivalent thereof), Buyer can notify Seller in writing that the transfer of Scheduled Receivables against the debtor(s) concerned shall be made with recourse against Seller. Said recourse factoring will apply with immediate effect for new debtors and as from the date following the notifications for the other situations defined above until both parties agree to return to non-recourse factoring for the debtor(s) concerned. As to Scheduled Receivables for which recourse factoring is applied, Seller is due to Buyer a reduced Factoring Fee to be agreed by both parties.”

Bij brief van 28 juni 1999 heeft [bedrijf 7] aan [bedrijf 8] het volgende bericht:

“Please note that the outstanding Scheduled Receivables against debtor [naam 37] exceed € 3 million. In line with article 7 (d) of the Agreement, we would like to inform you that the transfer of Scheduled Receivables against [naam 37] as from July 1st, 1999 will be made with recourse against yourself. The recourse factoring for the Receivables against [naam 37] transferred as from July 1st, 1999 will continue until both parties agree to return to non-recourse factoring. As we do no longer bear the risks pertaining to the insolvency or bankruptcy of [naam 37] , we propose to reduce the Factoring Fee to 0.22% of the Net Value of said Scheduled Receivables against [naam 37] .”

[bedrijf 9] heeft in 2008 een transfer-pricingrapport opgesteld. Daarin is onder meer het volgende opgenomen:

“2. [ [bedrijf 9] ] determined an arm’s length range of the factoring fees based on an analysis of the accounts receivable management services and a credit risk analysis. The analysis of the accounts receivable management services fee was based on additional fees charged in syndicated loan structures to manage the loan agreement, whereas for the credit risk we computed a client portfolio rating based on a client credit rating analysis.

In november 2010 heeft [bedrijf 7] een transfer-pricingrapport opgesteld. In het rapport staat onder meer het volgende:

“4.1. Functions

(…)

For each new customer [concern] companies conclude a sale with, and for which a credit facility may be convened for the payment of its invoices, [concern] companies is requested to ask the approval of [bedrijf 7] for the acceptance of the client and the credit limits to be granted.

(…)

In case certain customers exceed the credit term granted by [bedrijf 7] , the AR Ops Department will contact them directly (…)

In case of an actual overdue, (…), the AR Ops Department of [bedrijf 7] will proceed to the actions described in a dunning scheme defined by the Credit Committee on a case by case basis.

(…)

In een Transfer Pricing Report van [concern] getiteld [naam 39] van 31 december 2014, is onder meer het volgende opgenomen:

“Shared services are aggregated ‘above-market’ in order to capture synergies and cost efficiencies, obtain lower costs for the group overall, provide a better quality cost service and enable individual end-markets to focus on their national priorities. Shared service operations are responsible for delivering selected ‘service lines’ to the end-market, regions and central functions at agreed quality standards and prices. They are responsible for ensuring that proper controls, governance risk assessment and documentation are clear, transparent and in place.

(…)

The entities providing shared service functions on behalf of the rest of the [concern] group are set out in the table below:

(…)

Entity Type and Region Entity Name

(…)

Finance shared services for Western [concern]

Europe (factoring) Co-ordination Centre”

In een brief van [bedrijf 8] aan verweerder van 21 mei 2015 wordt over de kredietverzekering bij [bedrijf 11] onder meer het volgende vermeld:

“Met betrekking tot het verzekeringscontract met [bedrijf 11] het volgende. Vanaf juli 1999 was het kredietrisico met betrekking tot de afnemer [naam 37] niet langer verzekerd bij [bedrijf 7] vanwege overschrijding van het kredietlimiet. De factoring fee ten aanzien van deze afnemer is dan ook vanaf dat moment verlaagd. In 2007 zag [bedrijf 13] BV (“ [bedrijf 13] ”) zich genoodzaakt het kredietrisico voor [naam 37] extern af te dekken waarbij [bedrijf 11] de eis stelde dat het gehele klantenportfolio van [bedrijf 13] zou worden verzekerd. [bedrijf 13] heeft hierin toegestemd vanwege het reële risico op faillissement van [naam 37] hetgeen zich ook kort nadien heeft voorgedaan.”

Verweerder heeft eiseres bij brief van 20 november 2015 als volgt bericht:

“U antwoordt in uw brief van 16 oktober 2015:

“Uw interpretatie dat er door [bedrijf 7] geen werkzaamheden zijn verricht met betrekking tot debiteuren (…) is niet juist. In onze brief van 12 maart 2015 hebben wij een beschrijving gegeven van de werkzaamheden van [bedrijf 7] , te weten (onder meer) kredietrisico analyses, vaststellen en monitoring van kredietlimieten, monitoring van betalingstermijnen, incasso, administratieve werkzaamheden, etc.(…)”

U heeft tot op heden alleen schriftelijke stukken verstrekt met betrekking tot de interne activiteiten die worden verricht door [bedrijf 7] inzake de debiteuren. U geeft helaas geen schriftelijke stukken verstrekt die betrekking op de externe [voetnoot: Buiten concern. Activiteiten naar derden (in casu de debiteuren).] activiteiten van [bedrijf 7] . Denk hierbij aan de facturen, de eventuele schriftelijke toelichting op die facturen, de (eventuele) schriftelijke aanmaningen etc (kortom: de schriftelijke stukken aan de debiteuren zelf).

(…)

Wij verzoeken u daarom nogmaals de schriftelijke stukken van [bedrijf 7] en de [land 2] vennootschappen te verstrekken die betrekking hebben op de debiteuren. Wij benadrukken dat wij de schriftelijke stukken vragen die gewisseld zijn met die debiteuren. Wij verzoeken u ons verzoek niet beperkt te interpreteren maar zo ruim mogelijk, (…)

Indien uit de schriftelijke stukken blijkt dat [bedrijf 7] zelf contacten heeft en onderhoudt met de debiteuren van de [land 2] vennootschappen, verzoeken wij u de volgende informatie met betrekking tot [bedrijf 7] te verstrekken:

- hoeveel FTE’s houden zich per jaar bezig met de [land 2] debiteuren en welk percentage vormt dit van de in totaal per jaar in [bedrijf 7] werkzame FTE’s;

- gaarne ontvangen wij de urenstaten van de [functie] waarin de werkzaamheden met betrekking tot de [land 2] debiteuren zijn vastgelegd;

- tevens ontvangen wij graag de functie-omschrijvingen van die personen en hun opleidingsniveau;

- hoeveel bedragen jaarlijks de kosten die [bedrijf 7] maakt voor de debiteuren van de [land 2] vennootschappen;

- graag onderverdeling van kosten naar de externe (dus met de [land 2] debiteuren) contacten en de interne (in concern) werkzaamheden.”

Eiseres heeft verweerder bij brief van 24 december 2015 als volgt bericht:

“Voorts doen wij u de volgende informatie met betrekking tot [bedrijf 7] toekomen:

 In de periode 2008 tot en met 2014 zijn er 49 - 60 FTE's werkzaam geweest waarvan ongeveer 2,6 FTE’s zich exclusief bezighield met de debiteuren in de markten [land 2] , [land 3] , [land 11] en [land 5] .

 (…)

 Het opleidingsniveau van de personen in kwestie is een A1 diploma accountancy. In de bijlage treft u een functieomschrijving aan.

 (…)”

[naam 40] , in 2007 bij eiseres werkzaam als corporate finance controller en verantwoordelijk voor de onderhandelingen met [bedrijf 11] , heeft op 10 juli 2020 onder meer verklaard:

“In 2007 [naam 37] had already been a substantial customer of [bedrijf 8] for a long time. It had a long history of payment issues, but in early 2007 a crisis seemed imminent and [bedrijf 8] was actively considering strategies to deal with that situation. One of the options that we investigated, was to take out a credit insurance, in order to enable [bedrijf 8] to continue its deliveries to [naam 37] , without bearing credit risk. (…) We contacted [bedrijf 11] for that purpose, but it became clear that [bedrijf 11] was not prepared to provide coverage for the full amount of [bedrijf 8] ’s exposure to [naam 37] , but only to a maximum of € 2.7 million. Moreover, the price quoted by [bedrijf 11] for that limited coverage amounted to € 440.000 per year,(…) in October 2007, [bedrijf 8] and [bedrijf 11] agreed an insurance policy, broadly speaking on the same terms and conditions [bedrijf 11] had quoted earlier on.(…) [bedrijf 11] (…) could not issue an insurance policy covering the risk of one single debtor, but instead insisted that the policy should nominally reference [bedrijf 8] ’s entire credit portfolio. This was always going to be a nominal coverage only, as all other credit risks were already insured with [bedrijf 7] and the conditions of the [bedrijf 11] policy – as is common practice – ruled out the coverage of risks already covered by any other insurance of similar arrangement. It was therefore clear to both parties that the policy would effectively only cover the risk on [naam 37] .”

2014 2015 2016

Betaald 3.113.609 3.158.000 1.476.000

Maximale factoring fee 327.683 332.355 155.338

Correctie 2.785.926 2.825.645 1.320.662

De in juni 2004, mei 2006 en maart 2010 uitgegeven obligatieleningen spelen in de onderhavige zaken geen rol meer.

De door [bedrijf 1] aan [bedrijf 2] betaalde garantiefees bedroegen in de onderhavige jaren € 25.956.000 (2014), € 22.174.000 (2015) en € 8.191.000 (2016).

In een e-mailbericht van een van de gemachtigden aan [naam 42] ( [functie] van [concern] ) van 4 mei 2004 is onder meer opgenomen:

“(…) as discussed (…) and I have reviewed the guarantee fee proposal. The 162 bps for the difference in margin seems straightforward and reasonable. (…)

(…)

Obviously some discussion on pricing with the inspector may well be expected. At euro 18.5 mio per year, the amount of the fee is undoubtedly going to att[r]act attention. Moreover, the interesting aspect of the guarantee fee is that it is paid to an affiliated party. In this particular case the guarantee fee is also quite high in relation to the actual coupon, so that 1/4 or 1/3 of the amount deducted by [bedrijf 13] is paid to an affiliated party which is not in a taxpaying position. This may raise some eyebrows. The wording of article 10a seems to block any challenge along these lines as it clearly only disallows “interest, other expenses, and currency results connected with loans owed (…) to affiliated parties” Although the guarantee fee is paid to an affiliated party, the underlying loan is clearly owed to outsiders. The downside of all these potential discussions is limited though, as we understand the fees would not attract actual tax in the [land 6] . Obviously, if we would be forced to accept any corrections on the pricing of the guarantee, we would seek corresponding adjustments in the [land 6] on the basis of the mutual agreement provision in the NL- [land 6] treaty or of the EU arbitrage treaty. In this connection I note that the European Commission proposed a transfer pricing code of conduct a few days ago, which is aimed at eliminating double tax in situations like this.”

Eiseres heeft een artikel van Standard & Poor’s (S&P) overgelegd van (oorspronkelijk) 28 oktober 2004, betreffende onder meer “Corporate criteria--parent/subsidiary links; general principles (…)”. Hierin staat onder meer:

“Parent/Subsidiary Links

Affiliation between a stronger and a weaker entity will almost always affect the credit quality of both, unless the relative size of one is insignificant. The question is rather how close together the two ratings should be pulled on the basis of affiliation.

General Principles

In general, economic incentive is the most important factor on which to base judgments about the degree of linkage that exists between a parent and subsidiary. This matters more than covenants, support agreements, management assertions, or legal opinions. Business managers have a primary obligation to serve the interest of their shareholders, and it should generally be assumed they will act to satisfy this responsibility. If this means infusing cash into a unit previously termed a stand-alone subsidiary, or finding a way around covenants to get cash out of a protected subsidiary, then management can be expected to follow these courses of action to the extent possible. It is important to think ahead to various stress scenarios and consider how management would likely act under those circumstances. If a parent supports a subsidiary only as long as the subsidiary does not need it, such support is meaningless.

A weak entity owned by a strong parent usually--although not always--will enjoy a stronger rating than it would on a stand-alone basis. Assuming the parent has the ability to support its subsidiary during a period of financial stress, the spectrum of possibilities still ranges from ratings equalization at one extreme to very little or no help from the parent’s credit strength at the other. The greater the gap to be bridged, the more evidence of support is necessary.

The parent’s rating is, of course, assigned when it guarantees or assumes subsidiary debt. Guarantees and assumption of debt are different legal mechanisms that are equivalent from a rating perspective. (…)

Subsidiaries/Joint Ventures/Nonrecourse Projects

With respect to the parent’s credit rating, affiliated businesses’ operations and their debt may be treated analytically in several different ways, depending on the perceived relationship between the parent and the operating unit. (…)

Sometimes, the relationship may be characterized as an investment. (…)

At the other end of the spectrum, operations may be characterized as an integrated business. Then, the analysis would fully consolidate the operation’s income sheet and balance sheet; and the risk profile of the operations is integrated with the overall business risk analysis. Or, the business may not fall neatly into either category; it may lie somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. In such cases, the analytical technique calls for partial or pro rata consolidation and

usually the presumption of additional investment, that is, the money the company likely would spend to bail out the unit in which it has invested.

This characterization of the relationship also governs the approach to rating the debt of the subsidiary or the project. The size of the gap between the stand-alone credit quality of the project or unit and that of the group, sponsor, or parent is a function of the perceived relationship: the greater the integration, the greater the potential for parent or sponsor support. The reciprocal of burdening the parent with the nonrecourse debt is the attribution of support to that debt. The notion of support extends beyond formal or legal aspects and can narrow, and sometimes even close, the gap between the rating level of the parent and that of the issuing unit.

(…)

Formal support--such as a guarantee (not merely a comfort letter)--by one parent or sponsor ensures that the debt will be rated at the level of the support provider. Support from more than one party, such as a joint and several guarantee, can lead to a rating higher than that of either support provider. (See Public Finance Criteria--Jointly Supported Debt.)

Determining factors.

No single factor determines the analytical view of the relationship with the business venture in question. Rather, these are several factors that, taken together, will lead to one characterization or another. These factors include:

• Strategic importance--integrated lines of business or critical supplier;

• Percentage ownership (current and prospective);

• Management control;

• Shared name;

• Domicile in same country;

• Common sources of capital;

• Financial capacity for providing support;

• Significance of amount of investment;

• Investment relative to amount of debt at the venture or project;

• Nature of other owners (strategic or financial; financial capacity);

• Management’s stated posture;

• Track record of parent company in similar circumstances; and

• The nature of potential risks.

(…)

Some factors indicate an economic rationale for a close relationship or debt support. Others, such as management control or shared name, pertain also to a moral obligation, with respect to the venture and its liabilities. Accordingly, it can be crucial to distinguish between cases where the risk of default is related to commercial or economic factors, and where it arises from litigation or political factors. (No parent company or sponsor can be expected to feel a moral

obligation if its unit is expropriated.)

(…)

Percentage ownership is an important indication of control, but it is not viewed in the same absolute fashion that dictates the accounting treatment of the relationship. Standard & Poor’s also tries to be pragmatic in its analysis. For example, awareness of a handshake agreement to support an ostensibly nonrecourse loan would overshadow other indicative factors.

Clearly, there is an element of subjectivity in assessing most of these factors, as well as the overall conclusion regarding the relationship. There is no magic formula for the combination of these factors that would lead to one analytical approach or another.

(…)

Foreign ownership.

Parent/subsidiary considerations are somewhat different when a company is owned by a foreign parent or group. The foreign parent is not subject to the same bankruptcy code, so a bankruptcy of the parent would not, in and of itself, prompt a bankruptcy of the subsidiary. In most jurisdictions, insolvency is treated differently from the way it is treated in [land 20] ., and various legal and regulatory constraints and incentives need to be considered. Still, in all circumstances, it is important to evaluate the parent’s credit quality. The foreign parent’s creditworthiness is a crucial factor in the subsidiary’s rating to the extent the parent might be willing and able either to infuse the subsidiary with cash or draw cash from it. A separate parent or group rating will be assigned (on a confidential basis) to facilitate this analysis.

(…)

In the opposite case of weak subsidiaries and strong foreign parents, the ratings gap tends to be larger than if both were domestic entities. Sovereign boundaries impede integration and make it easier for a foreign parent to distance itself in the event of problems at the subsidiary.”

In een verklaring van 6 mei 2014 schrijft [naam 43] ( [naam 43] ; group treasurer van het [concern] ):

“[ [bedrijf 1] ] is a key financing company for the [concern] Group. This entity issues debt in the public markets from time to time to support investments in its business. The entity manages its overall financial profile at both a single entity and consolidated level on an ongoing basis. When [bedrijf 1] contemplates the issuance of a new debt security, analysis is undertaken to ascertain its ability to issue the securities and establish the pricing it would achieve on a standalone basis. This assessment is supported by a market participant i.e. lead management bank; their analysis typically includes reviewing financial and other data e.g. market shares, etc. to derive an estimated rating for [bedrijf 1] on a stand-alone basis. Based on this they further indicate the expected pricing [bedrijf 1] would pay for the securities to be issued on an unguaranteed basis.

However, as the issuance by [bedrijf 1] is guaranteed by [bedrijf 2] (“ [bedrijf 2] ”), which has a higher rating, the pricing achieved on issuance is always lower than that which [bedrijf 1] would have achieved, had it issued on an unguaranteed basis. If no guarantee fee were paid, [bedrijf 1] would be receiving the benefits of the [bedrijf 2] guarantee in the form of cheaper financing without providing any consideration. It is therefore necessary to charge an arm’s length guarantee fee to reflect the value of the support provided by [bedrijf 2] to [bedrijf 1] .

The guarantee fee is calculated as the difference between the pricing achieved for the debt security and the notional pricing at time of issuance. The notional pricing, as noted above, is provided by a lead manager bank and is based on their estimated rating of [bedrijf 1] at issuance. With regards to the most recent issuance in March 2014, the lead manager bank indicated that due to [bedrijf 1] having a prior issuance record and some name recognition, pricing would be in the range of 0bp to l0bp lower than for a generic stand-alone entity with [bedrijf 1] ’s financial profile. In the main the investors would rely on contractual terms rather than this recognition and any benefit would be dependent upon market conditions. However, to reflect this, [concern] used the lower bound of the notional pricing range for [bedrijf 1] provided by the bank when calculating the guarantee fee.”

In het naar aanleiding van het boekenonderzoek door verweerder opgemaakte controlerapport van 7 december 2017 is ten aanzien van de garantiefees onder meer vermeld:

“3.3 Toegepast systeem

(…)

Credit ratings

[bedrijf 2] had tot en met 2011 een door rating-agencies afgegeven rating van BBB+/Baa1, in 2012 A-/Baa1 en in 2013 en 2014 A-/A3. In de bankrapporten wordt de stand-alone credit-rating van [bedrijf 1] tot en met 2006 ingeschat op BB+ en vanaf 2010 op BBB-/Baa3 [voetnoot 3: In de jaren 2007 t/m 2009 heeft [bedrijf 1] geen obligaties uitgegeven]. In een aantal gevallen is de rating gebaseerd op een eerder afgegeven bankrapport. In dat geval heeft de betreffende bank in een memorandum bevestigd dat dezelfde pricing kan worden verwacht.

Pas vanaf 2010 wordt [bedrijf 1] door de banken op de laagst mogelijke investment grade kwalificatie ingeschaald. De concernrating van [concern] ligt steeds 2 of 3 notches boven de stand-alone rating van [bedrijf 1] .

(…)

Vennootschappelijke sfeer

(…)

Vanuit het perspectief van [bedrijf 2] wordt door het garant staan voor de leningen van [bedrijf 1] de stroom dividenden (meer dan 100% van de winst wordt uitgedividend) gegarandeerd. Dit is in het eigen belang van [bedrijf 2] c.q. haar aandeelhouders. Een fee is daarmee overbodig en ligt in de dividendsfeer.

(…)

In het geval de garantiefees zich niet in de vennootschappelijke sfeer zouden afspelen, zijn verrekenprijsbepalingen van belang.

(…)

(iii) Afgeleide rating

Als een vennootschap deel uitmaakt van een concern is de kapitaalmarkt, ook indien geen sprake is van een expliciete garantie, bereid om op basis van de afgeleide rating aan de groepsvennootschap te lenen. De afgeleide rating komt niet overeen met de stand-alone rating die de vennootschap zou hebben als ze geen deel uitmaakte van een groep. Bij de bepaling van de afgeleide rating is de positie van de concernvennootschap binnen de groep van belang.

Ratingbureaus hanteren daarvoor het volgende onderscheid: [voetnoot 13: Zie o.a. ook: Group Rating Methodolgy van Standard & Poors (7 mei 2013)]

 Core

 Highly strategic

 Strategically important

 Moderate strategic

 Non strategic

De indeling wordt bepaald op basis van een aantal criteria. Toetsing aan die criteria voor [bedrijf 1] geeft het volgende beeld:

[bedrijf 1] treedt op als houdstervennootschap van de [land 2] operationele activiteiten en van de operationele activiteiten in andere landen zoals [land 7] . Ongeveer een kwart van het totale concern-inkomen wordt behaald via [bedrijf 1] . De aandelen van [bedrijf 1] worden gehouden door [bedrijf 14] . [bedrijf 14] houdt daarnaast belangen in een groot aantal andere operationele concernvennootschappen. In totaal wordt ongeveer 80% van het [concern] direct of indirect gehouden door [bedrijf 14] .

Gezien de omvang van de onderneming en het belang voor het concern is het zeer onwaarschijnlijk dat [concern] haar belang in [bedrijf 1] of [bedrijf 14] , waarvan [bedrijf 1] onderdeel uitmaakt, zal afstoten.

Een onderneming die voldoet aan de eerste zeven criteria en bovendien aan één van de laatste drie criteria wordt als een core concernvennootschap gezien. Behoudens het laatst genoemde criterium voldoet [bedrijf 1] aan alle criteria. Daarom kan [bedrijf 1] als een core vennootschap binnen het [concern] worden aangemerkt.

(…)

Gezien het strategisch belang van [bedrijf 1] voor [concern] zal het niet kunnen voldoen aan de verplichtingen uit hoofde van de obligatieleningen door [bedrijf 1] voor [concern] tot zeer hoge kosten leiden als gevolg van reputatieschade en een lagere concernrating met als gevolg hogere rentelasten. Door de markt zal worden verwacht dat [concern] plc deze dochtermaatschappij zal ondersteunen in het geval [bedrijf 1] niet aan haar betalingsverplichtingen dreigt te kunnen voldoen. De rente die [bedrijf 1] zonder expliciete garantie zelfstandig zou kunnen bedingen zal daarom overeenkomen met de rente gebaseerd op de concernrating dan wel zeer dicht bij de rente gebaseerd op de concernrating liggen. [voetnoot 14: S&P gaat voor core-entities uit van een creditrating overeenkomend met de concernrating]”

Op 10 juli 2020 heeft [naam 43] een (Engelstalige) verklaring opgemaakt waarin hij onder meer uiteenzet (1) wat het groepsbeleid was ten aanzien van implicit support tot 2014 en vanaf 2014, (2) de reden dat voor de cross guarantees geen garantiefees werden betaald, en (3) de creditrating van [bedrijf 4] en eiseres en het strategische belang van [bedrijf 1] en [bedrijf 4] voor het [concern] . In de verklaring staat onder meer:

“(…) Group policy on ‘implicit support’ before 2014

(…) Group policy on ‘implicit support’ as of 2014

(…)

In het naar aanleiding van het boekenonderzoek door verweerder opgemaakte controlerapport van 7 december 2017 is ten aanzien van de rente [bedrijf 4] onder meer vermeld (zonder voetnoten):

“Als de pricing wordt vergeleken met een in dezelfde periode door [bedrijf 4] uitgegeven obligatielening met een looptijd van 7 jaar (afgesloten op 12 maart 2008 met een rente van 5,875%) is sprake van een te hoge spread van tenminste 1,209%-punt. Voor 2013 is een te hoge spread van 60 bps gehanteerd en voor 2014 en daarna was de spread 62 bps te hoog. Hierdoor is over de totale looptijd van de lening € 14.690.589 teveel rente aan [bedrijf 1] in rekening gebracht.

Correcties

2015 € 167.400

2014 165.500

2013 216.828

2012 2.937.852

2011 3.023.000

2010 3.023.000

2009 3.023.000

2008 2.015.333

Totaal € 14.572.114 ”

nominale Rente Van Tot koers bij waarde (€)

waarde (€) overdracht

650.000.000 4,875% 2009 2021 1,21235 788.027.500

600.000.000 4,000% 2010 2020 1,15785 694.710.000

750.000.000 2,375% 2012 2023 1,13795 830.962.500

600.000.000 3,125% 2014 2029 1,19290 715.740.000

2.600.000.000 3.029.440.000

Nominale waarde 2.600.000.000

Marktwaarde 3.029.440.000

Verlies - 429.440.000

Resultaat uit interest SWAP-contracten 74.777.573

Nog niet geamortiseerde uitgiftekosten - 2.443.396

Verlies - 357.105.823

De uitgifte van de Bonds is onderworpen aan interne richtlijnen. In de ‘Group Treasury Manual’, opgesteld door de Treasury afdeling te [plaats 2] is onder meer vermeld:

“Product maturities should not exceed the maturity profile of the underlying exposure - the maturity profile (or duration) of the IRR product should match the maturity profile (or duration) of the underlying exposure.”

In de jaarrekening 2014 van [bedrijf 2] is het volgende vermeld:

“The Treasury function is responsible for raising finance for the Group, managing the Group’s cash resources and managing the financial risks arising from underlying operations. All these activities are carried out under defined policies, procedures and limits. The Board reviews and agrees the overall Treasury policies and procedures, delegating appropriate oversight to the Finance [functie] and the Treasury function. The policies include a set of financing principles and key performance indicators (...).

(…)

It is the policy of the Group to maximise financial flexibility and minimise refinancing risk by issuing debt with a range of maturities, generally matching the projected cash flows of the Group and obtaining this financing from a wide range of providers.”

In december 2011 / januari 2012 is een vaststellingsovereenkomst (VSO) gesloten tussen [bedrijf 1] en de Belastingdienst (zie verder 1.9.2). Hierin verklaart [bedrijf 1] :

“ [concern] streeft naar een optimalisatie van haar fiscale positie in die zin dat in elk geval de last van rente betaald aan derden in het concern zoveel mogelijk daar wordt neergelegd, waar ook voldoende belastbaar resultaat wordt gerealiseerd om met die renteaftrek een daadwerkelijke reductie van belasting te realiseren.”

In de directienotulen van eiseres ( [bedrijf 14] ) van 12 april 2016 is onder meer het volgende opgenomen:

“Background

During 2015 the [concern] (…) decided upon a new strategic direction whereby changes would be made to the trading model in the [regio] region during 2015 and 2016 (Project 2Morrow) (…)

At the same time the current export hub, [ [bedrijf 3] B.V., hierna: [bedrijf 3] ], a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of the Company, received notice of termination on the licenses it holds for the manufacturing, sales and marketing (…). (…)

When the trading model would change mid-2016, the profit base of the [land 2] fiscal unity would decrease substantially and the significant levels of debt currently in held the [land 2] would become unsustainable.”

In de ‘Note to the Transactions Committee of [bedrijf 2] ’ van april 2016 is onder meer het volgende opgenomen:

"When the [land 2] ’ trading model changes mid-2016, the significant levels of debt currently in the [land 2] will become unsustainable. It is therefore proposed that four series of bonds issued by [ [bedrijf 18] ] under the Group’s £1,5bn [ [programma] Programme] are novated to [ [bedrijf 4] ] in the [land 6] , using the funds received by the [land 2] as a result of the sale of the subsidiaries to [ [bedrijf 6] ]."

Sinds 2008 zijn de supply chain activiteiten ((planning van) inkoop, logistiek en productie) van de End Markets voor West-Europa belegd bij [bedrijf 6] . Voor de inkoop van Leaf zet zij verzoeken uit bij [concern] ( [bedrijf 21] ) Ltd. te [plaats 2] ( [bedrijf 21] ) die is belast met de centrale inkoop van Leaf . De Leaf wordt door de leveranciers rechtstreeks vervoerd naar de producenten. In het rapport ‘ [concern] : Supply Chain [regio] Transfer Pricing Report Period ended 31 December 2012’ van september 2011 / mei 2012 wordt de rol van [bedrijf 6] en de gekozen transfer pricing methode als volgt toegelicht:

“ [bedrijf 6] operates as an integrated supply chain centre responsible for the management and supply of all products [voetnoot: [bedrijf 6] supplies cigarette products to the End Markets and will supply OTP (Other Tobacco Products) from Q2 2012] to [concern] End Markets in [regio] . To fulfil this role it performs a wide range of activities including: procurement of direct materials, management of procurement of indirect spend categories, supply chain planning (inventory, material and distribution), logistics and network optimisation, management of capital expenditure, capacity review and optimisation, contingency sourcing, and input in to product specifications.

[bedrijf 6] owns all raw materials, sources manufacturing services from a number of factories in Europe, and owns finished product prior to sale to the End Market. Its role is to balance demand and supply ensuring the sourcing, footprint and logistics networks are optimised in terms of cost, capability and risk management.

In addition, it must ensure it has the capability to deliver consumer innovation required by the End Market. It must therefore monitor and review the factory asset base ensuring the right resources and technologies are in place to meet demand.

To respond to its customers needs it must focus on 3 principal areas in order to deliver an effective and efficient supply chain:

Innovation – Capability and flexibility to deliver consumer relevant innovations and ability to plan and deliver mass market deployment

Quality – focus on consumer relevant end to end quality and strategic formats

Efficiency – Identify and deliver savings from new productivity sources, deliver scale savings and implement a standard OM with efficient overheads

(…)

The functions of [bedrijf 6] can be split into 5 broad categories:

• Plan;

• Buy;

• Make;

• Move; and

• Sell/Service.

(…)The end-markets act as fully fledged distributors and are ultimately responsible for selling cigarettes to the trade. They are responsible for the overall commercial performance of the market and for delivering financial performance for the market.

In relation to supply chain End Markets have little operational capability. They input sales forecasts and demand in to [bedrijf 6] planning software, APO. They are responsible for producing cycle plans which outline the rollout plan for new products and product variants. These are fed in to [bedrijf 6] through the Product Review where [bedrijf 6] ensures the End Market is aware of the capability and resource constraints applicable to the cycle plan.

The End Market is responsible for logistics from the first warehouse in the market where there is no direct trade distribution arrangement. However [bedrijf 6] provides logistics support through its LLP structure.(…)Sale of finished goods to [concern] end-markets

Introduction

In applying the OECD Guidelines to the facts and circumstances presented elsewhere in this report it is necessary first to consider which pricing method is most appropriate to set the prices for the transactions concerned.

A standard manufacturing and supply arrangement revolves around a commitment to supply product of a certain quality at a certain price. For transfer pricing purposes, these arrangements are often characterised as cost plus arrangements with the cost plus margin determined by reference to the equivalent margin earned by independent third parties.

The business reasons for the arrangements between [bedrijf 6] and the End Markets are the wish to maximise synergies and economies of scale, to streamline the management of business lines and to improve the efficiency of the supply chain. As such, the arrangement is therefore that of a partnership or collaboration.

Remuneration for such an arrangement needs to be structured to reflect the respective contributions of the parties. Where the commitment and expertise of [bedrijf 6] is required to contribute to reductions in the product cost base, mitigate price increases, contribute to operational efficiency, handle increased regulatory complexity and generate procurement savings, a cost plus transfer pricing methodology is unlikely to provide an appropriate return commensurate with the functions, assets and risk of the organisation. In particular, through achieving a reduction in the cost base, a supplying company will actually end up generating a lower income for themselves when a cost plus methodology is applied so removing any incentive for improving performance.

An alternative approach might be the negotiation of a fixed price supply agreement between [bedrijf 6] and the end markets. [bedrijf 6] would then take the benefit of savings generated above an agreed level whilst suffering the risk of under achievement. The main issue with this approach is that the supply chain improvement programme being undertaken in [regio] is a three year programme and it is difficult to predict accurately the underlying product cost given the changes that the business is faced with which embrace both cost reduction and avoidance initiatives and handling the burden of increased regulation.

The approach taken therefore is to adopt a cost plus methodology to reward the routine functions of [bedrijf 6] , which allows for annual revision of product cost to take account of changes in inflation, product mix and regulatory compliance, supplemented by a profit split contribution back to [bedrijf 6] from the End Markets.

In selecting the profit split calculation as the most appropriate method, reference was made to the OECD Guidelines which note that “The main strength of the transactional profit split method is that it can offer a solution for highly integrated operations for which a one-sided method would not be appropriate.” “A transactional profit split method may also be found to be the most appropriate method in cases where both parties to a transaction make unique and valuable contributions to the transaction, because in such a case independent parties might wish to share the profits of the transaction in proportion to their respective contributions and a two-sided method might be more appropriate in these circumstances than a one-sided method. In addition, in the presence of unique and valuable contributions, reliable comparables information might be insufficient to apply another method.”

The transactional profit split method first identifies the profits to be split for the associated enterprises from the controlled transactions in which the associated enterprises are engaged (the “combined profits”). It then splits those combined profits between the associated enterprises on an economically valid basis that approximates the division of profits that would have been anticipated and reflected in an agreement made at arm’s length. In general, the determination of the combined profits to be split and of the splitting factors should:

• Be consistent with the functional analysis of the controlled transaction under review, and in particular reflect the allocation of risks among the parties,• Be consistent with the determination of the combined profits to be split and of the splitting factors which would have been agreed between independent parties,”

A strength of the transactional profit split method is that it offers flexibility by taking into account specific, possibly unique, facts and circumstances of the associated enterprises that are not present in independent enterprises, while still constituting an arm’s length approach to the extent that it reflects what independent enterprises reasonably would have done if faced with the same circumstances.

A further strength of the transactional profit split method is that it is less likely that either party to the controlled transaction will be left with an extreme and improbable profit result, since both parties to the transaction are evaluated. This aspect can be particularly important when analysing the contributions by the parties in respect of the intangible property employed in the controlled transactions. This two-sided approach may also be used to achieve a division of the profits from economies of scale or other joint efficiencies that satisfies both the taxpayer and tax administrations.

The transactional profit split calculation will give [bedrijf 6] a share of End Market residual profit designed so as to split the benefit from [bedrijf 6] ’s activities over and above a routine manufacturing return, between the parties. The residual profit split from the End Markets is calculated after taking account of any return for intellectual property and routine marketing and distribution activities.

Discussion of Routine Returns for [bedrijf 6] and End Markets

A TNMM approach has been selected for testing the level of routine returns allocated to [bedrijf 6] and the End Markets for their manufacturing and distribution activities respectively under the residual profit split approach outlined above.

When [bedrijf 6] calculates product prices, a routine mark-up element of 12% is added to costs. However, the cost base to which this mark-up is added does not include all costs incurred by [bedrijf 6] and so does not equate to an operating margin. After taking account of toll manufacturing fees and local costs not passed through by [bedrijf 6] when calculating transfer prices of approximately 4% to 5% of cost. The routine element of [bedrijf 6] ’s reward equates to a FCMU of 7% to 8%, which is well within the interquartile range for the FCMU of manufacturing comparables discussed earlier. This level of return is also consistent with the level agreed as part of the [bedrijf 26] manufacturing agreement also included earlier.

The return for End Market routine sales and marketing activities has been allocated by calculating a 5% operating margin. This is towards the higher end of the range, but as described earlier the End Markets are complex sales and marketing entities bearing significant market risk and so taking the upper end of the range was considered appropriate for the residual profit split calculation.

Finally, a ‘notional’ royalty return was allocated to End Markets where they own the brand locally (so are not paying a related party a royalty) to provide a return for this ownership of intellectual property. [concern] has a standard royalty policy globally which is supportive by extensive external CUPs where 5% is at the median of the range which is presented in the earlier comparables section.

Discussion of Residual Profit Split Factors

A profit split percentage for [bedrijf 6] of 7% has been calculated based the relative contributions of the parties to the transaction. The OECD Guidelines (p2.135) when providing guidance on the application of the profit split method suggests that headcount of individuals in key functions generating value to the transaction may be an appropriate allocation key for dividing profit.

To support the 7% an analysis of senior headcount was performed. [concern] management grading system is graded from G34 to G40 and above. [concern] considers senior management to be those grades G37 and above. The total number of senior management in [bedrijf 6] relative to the senior management in the End Markets was compared. Senior management are responsible for implementing Group strategy and are ultimately responsible for delivering operating results. As such this analysis provides an indication of the relative contribution made by [bedrijf 6] .

It is not possible with reasonable effort to determine the portion of dedication of [bedrijf 6] ’s senior headcount individually to each End Market and therefore a market individual country ratio cannot be determined.”

In het rapport ‘ [concern] : [land 2] - Supply Chain Pricing Transfer Pricing Report Period ended 31 December 2012 van september 2011 / 2013 worden de rollen van [bedrijf 3] en [bedrijf 6] en de gekozen transfer pricing methode als volgt toegelicht:

“(…) [ [bedrijf 3] ] and [ [bedrijf 20] B.V., hierna ook: [bedrijf 20] ] require a supply chain which can support their growth agenda. An efficient and integrated supply chain is needed to deliver on product quality, innovation deployment, portfolio optimisation, speed to market, and ultimately optimise the total delivered product cost within an increasingly stringent regulatory framework.

(…)

The Role of [ [bedrijf 3] ] and [ [bedrijf 20] ]

[ [bedrijf 3] ] and [ [bedrijf 20] ] are fully fledged distributors for various locally owned and internationally licenced brands for distribution in the domestic market and export markets across [regio] .

[ [bedrijf 3] ] and [ [bedrijf 20] ] source finished products from [bedrijf 6] :

As fully fledged distributors [ [bedrijf 3] ] and [ [bedrijf 20] ] are ultimately responsible for selling cigarettes and OTP to the trade. They are responsible for the overall commercial performance of the market and for delivering financial performance for the market.

The Role of [bedrijf 6] in the supply chain

[bedrijf 6] operates as a fully integrated supply chain centre responsible for the management and supply of all products [voetnoot: [bedrijf 6] supplies cigarette products to the End Markets and will supply OTP (Other Tobacco Products from Q2 2012)] to [concern] End Markets in [regio] . To fulfil this role it performs a wide range of activities including: procurement of direct materials, management of procurement of indirect spend categories, supply chain planning (inventory, material and distribution), logistics and network optimization, management of capital expenditure, capacity review and optimization, contingency sourcing, and input in to product specifications. [bedrijf 6] undertakes toll manufacturing with a number of [concern] entities across [regio] and acts as the toll principal in these relationships.

(…)

[bedrijf 6] operates as a supply chain centre, sourcing leaf , raw materials, logistics and manufacturing services from a mixture of related parties and third parties and acting as the main supplier of cigarettes to Western European end-markets within the [concern] group. [bedrijf 6] also administers a central pricing system through harmonising the manufacturing costs and averaging the logistics costs and some employee costs, (but not costs relating to wrapping materials or leaf ). [bedrijf 6] bears material price risk, foreign exchange, limited market risk, product quality risk, inventory obsolescence risk, and bad debt risk.

(…)

[bedrijf 6] manages the delivery of productivity savings to [ [bedrijf 3] ] (…) administered through its pricing system. It incorporates assumptions on cost increases for WMS and logistics, which account for 35% of the cost base of the End Markets, and builds in a reduction across all its transfer prices for productivity projects it expects will deliver price reductions during the year. Once prices are set it is [bedrijf 6] responsibility to ensure it achieves the targets built in tot the transfer prices otherwise it will see a reduction in the margin it achieves.In addition, [bedrijf 6] manages the delivery of indirect procurement projects that aim to reduce the cost base of [bedrijf 3] (…). This involves agreeing framework contracts and rolling out price deals to the End Markets

(…)

[ [bedrijf 3] ] and [ [bedrijf 20] ] act as fully fledged distributors and are ultimately responsible for selling cigarettes and OTP to customers. [ [bedrijf 3] ] and [ [bedrijf 20] ] bear risks in relation to the operations supply chain, including market risk, bad debt risk, foreign exchange risk, product quality risk (where not related to manufacturing activities administered by [bedrijf 6] ) and IP infringement risk. It owns various assets in the form of inventory, local brands and licence rights.

(…)

The business reasons for the arrangements between [bedrijf 6] and the End Markets are the wish to maximise synergies and economies of scale, to streamline the management of business lines and to improve the efficiency of the supply chain. As such, the arrangement is therefore that of a partnership or collaboration.

As a result of this collaboration the pricing methodology is cost plus with an adjusted profit element to reflect the hybrid nature of [bedrijf 6] functional and risk profile. The final transfer price to [ [bedrijf 3] ] and [ [bedrijf 20] ] is calculated as a combination of:

• 12% gross margin added to product cost (Routine profit element). [bedrijf 6] must bear certain costs which it does not build in to its transfer prices such as the cost of toll fees paid to the toll factories and project costs related to productivity initiatives.

• Additional mark up calculated by reference to the operating profit of [ [bedrijf 3] ] and [ [bedrijf 20] ] (non-routine profit element).(…)The Transfer Pricing methodology outlined above was arrived at after a consideration of other approaches to transfer pricing as follows:

(…)

• Cost Plus method: This was considered applicable to the extent that it covered the return for the routine activities. However a separate adjustment is needed to reflect the non-routine functions and risks of [bedrijf 6] .(…)• Profit Split: Considered applicable as [bedrijf 6] is considered to make unique and valuable contributions to the transaction through its contribution to reductions in the product cost base, mitigation of price increases, contribution to operational efficiency, handling increased regulatory complexity and generating procurement savings.”

De dienstverlening van [bedrijf 6] aan [bedrijf 3] vond in eerste instantie plaats op grond van de Supply Agreement van 18 februari 2009 (SA), waarbij [bedrijf 6] als leverancier en [bedrijf 3] als koper optrad. De SA luidt, voor zover van belang:

“2 Object of the Agreement, Delegation

(1) On the basis of [ [bedrijf 3] ]’s demand planning for the Products for the Territory [ [bedrijf 6] ] shall procure the manufacture and supply of the Products, meeting specifications and quality standards of [ [bedrijf 3] ] and the trademark owners, to the Place of Destination in accordance with [ [bedrijf 3] ]’s demands.

(…)

SCHEDULE 4

Transfer Pricing Principles

The Transfer Price for each SKU [rechtbank: stock keeping unit] will be calculated on the following Principles

(1) The Standard Transfer Price shall be calculated on the basis of the sum of the following Actual Costs to the Supplier, to which a standard mark up of 10% will be added:

 Leaf Costs

 Cost of duties on Leaf

 Cost of Wrapping Materials

 Manufacturing Cost

(2) Added to the Standard Transfer Price for each SKU will be the following additional costs:

 Standard Supply Chain recovery cost

 Duty adjustment for T1 goods

 Cost of any Royalties payable outside the [concern] Group

 Freight Charges

 Insurance Cost

The Sum of (1) and (2) above will be the Sales Price to [ [bedrijf 3] ]”

Tussen [bedrijf 6] en [bedrijf 3] is ter vervanging van de SA per 1 januari 2012 een Finished Goods Supply Agreement (FGSA) gesloten. De FGSA luidt, voor zover van belang:

“5. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DELEGATION

Eiseres heeft in haar aangiftes vpb over de jaren 2013 tot en met 2016 ter zake van de dienstverlening door [bedrijf 6] en over de jaren 2014 en 2015 ter zake van de kosten van de reorganisatie bij [bedrijf 5] bedragen ten laste van haar resultaat gebracht.

Het in 1.2.17 bedoelde onderzoek heeft zich tevens hierop gericht. De uitkomsten zijn neergelegd in het definitieve controlerapport van 1 december 2017. Op basis daarvan is bij de aanslagregeling – mede tot behoud van rechten – als volgt van de aangiften afgeweken (bedragen in €):

Bij brief aan verweerder van 21 augustus 2008 schreef eiseres (onder meer) het volgende over de werkzaamheden van [bedrijf 22] na de reorganisatie in 2008:

“ [bedrijf 22] is eigenaar van de rechten voor de [land 2] , [land 3] en [land 11] markt. [bedrijf 13] BV (de nieuw op te richten [land 2] distributeur) en de lokale vennootschappen verrichten de distributieactiviteiten op dezelfde basis als voorheen. [bedrijf 22] verricht hoofdkantoordiensten voor de [land 2] , [land 3] en [land 11] markt. De functies op het niveau van de distributiemaatschappijen blijven naar verwachting in grote lijnen dezelfde, zij het dat de nadruk meer zal komen te liggen op een strakke aansturing vanuit [bedrijf 22] . De kosten van de diensten aan [land 3] , [land 11] en [bedrijf 13] worden gedragen in [land 2] , waar ook de winst en het verlies uit deze markten vallen.”

Per 4 maart 2009 wijzigt de naam van [bedrijf 22] in [bedrijf 3] B.V. ( [bedrijf 3] ). [bedrijf 3] had op basis van licentieovereenkomsten met zes (gelieerde) Trade Mark Owners (TMO’s) - waarvan [bedrijf 25] Ltd. ( [bedrijf 25] ) de grootste licentiegever was - en één (gelieerde) sub-licentiegever het recht om onder bepaalde merken tabaksproducten te verkopen in meer dan twintig landen, voornamelijk in West-Europa. In december 2010 sloten [bedrijf 25] en [bedrijf 3] de Trade Mark and Technology Access Sub-Licence Agreement (TMTAA), waarin nieuwe afspraken werden gemaakt over de licenties die golden met terugwerkende kracht naar 1 januari 2010 (zie ook hierna onder 1.8.2). Deze gemaakte afspraken waren conform de standaardovereenkomst van het concern. Over de beëindiging van de overeenkomst werd het volgende bepaald:

“3. Term