Transfer pricing and the criminal tax regime
International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Transfer pricing and the criminal tax regime

The publication, in the Official Gazette, of Italian Legislative Decree No. 158/2015 (effective October 22 2015), which reformed the criminal tax system, resulted in the amendment of Article 4 of Legislative Decree No. 74/2000, regulating the offence of discrepant tax return.

Thanks to the above amendment, transfer pricing adjustments deriving from tax assessments on inter-company relations between an Italian corporation and a foreign subsidiary shall be deemed irrelevant for criminal law purposes. 

Moreover, in application of the favour rei principle (confirmed by Italian Supreme Court’s ruling No. 40272/2015), such irrelevance from a criminal law perspective should also be applied retroactively.

Until publication of the Decree, the provision set forth under Article 4 of Legislative Decree No. 74/2000 (Offence of discrepant tax declaration) – apart from any quantitative thresholds, which are moreover rather easily reached by the larger enterprises – a “merely discrepant tax declaration” was punishable, even where devoid of any fraudulent intent or connotations.

Such incrimination was merely based on the subject’s behaviour for having disclosed in one of the yearly tax returns, an income or a taxable base of a lesser amount than actual figures, by reporting a lower income/profit than the actual amounts, or for fictitious losses.

Nevertheless, Article 7 of Legislative Decree No. 74/2000 set forth an exempting rule providing that inaccurate entries and value estimates (referable to transfer pricing evaluations) may not give rise to punishable facts, if the criteria effectively adopted were clearly and adequately reported in the Explanatory Note to the Financial Statements. 

The above, in view of the fact that any explicit disclosure of value, estimates criteria in the Financial Statements cannot (in any way) be regarded as being of a deceptive nature, and is clearly incompatible with the crime of wilful tax evasion.

The said specific provision further corroborates how abstract the nature of any reference to accounting entries related to value estimates is, when establishing whether a case may be criminally relevant or not.

Notwithstanding the said provision, one wonders to what extent the indications on the criteria to be adopted should be specified in order for the exempting provision, ex Article 7 above to be applicable.

As a matter of fact, the issue involved is a case of non-punishment for directors within the criminal-tax area, which – where construed in an excessively rigorous manner (requirement to indicate not only the criterion adopted, such as the “Transactional Net Margin Method” or “TNMM”, but also the percentage margin applied) would lead to the dangerous occasion/necessity of revealing industrial and/or commercial secrets.

It might be worth noting that an Explanatory Note has the limited role and function of a Civil Law document and cannot, therefore, lend itself to bearing the weight of complicated tax evaluations, such as the ones involving inter-company transfer prices; in other words, the document could not possibly be compatible with the complexity of identifying and assessing value estimates related to the determination of taxable income.

Complicated aspects, such as the ones previously reported, were the reason for which – in practice – enterprises rarely indicated and accurately reported the criteria applied in determining their transfer prices in the Explanatory Note to their Financial Statements.

The legislator had also provided a further and residual “safeguard measure” under paragraph 2, Article 7 of Legislative Decree No. 74/2000, which excludes any punishment for “value estimates which, if individually considered, vary within less than 10% from the accurate ones”.

What ensues is that incorrect value estimates, even if not supplemented by any explanations in the Financial Statements of the criteria adopted, may not – in any case – become criminally relevant if the “malfunction/discrepancy” is restricted to the above limited extent.  The aim was to create some sort of “exemption” by means of which any difficulties linked to the estimates remaining within certain percentage limits, could be eliminated.

Legislative Decree No. 158/2015 amended Article 4 of Legislative Decree No. 74/2000 in various points: in particular, by replacing the expressions “fictitious loss elements” with “non-existent loss elements” under Article 4, it established that no cost actually borne, notwithstanding its being considered non-deductible, may become criminally relevant in connection with evaded tax.  Consequently, any challenges raised by the tax authorities on the subject-matter of transfer prices need no longer be reported to the said Authorities.

By Piergiorgio Valente and Ivo Caraccioli of Valente Associati GEB Partners

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Proposals by HM Revenue and Customs to raise standards in the advisory market are ‘well overdue’, one partner declared
An intimate understanding of a client’s sector is essential to winning new business, a survey of over 28,000 corporate counsel reveals
‘Auditors are failing to perform their core function’ according to a think tank; in other news, White & Case adds a tax partner in Luxembourg
An overhaul of EU import taxes could spell the end of an exemption for cheap parcels
Sharma, managing director for A&M in the United Arab Emirates, tells ITR about intense time pressures, mimicking Jurgen Klopp and what makes tax cool
AI will speed up some of the most laborious TP processes without making human input redundant, argues Hank Moonen, CEO of TaxModel
Firms with a broad geographic reach are more likely to win work, especially from global companies with high turnovers, according to survey data of nearly 29,000 corporate counsel
Australian businessman Gordon Merchant used EY’s advice to offset an A$85 million capital gain, according to the Federal Court
Griggs has been drafted in ahead of schedule as the incumbent Tim Ryan departs for Citigroup; while the Netherlands plans to scrap a 15% share buyback tax
Authorities must ensure that Russian firms do not use transfer pricing schemes to increase profits made from oil sold in different markets, advocacy organisations have argued
Gift this article