Application of TP methods reviewed by the Swiss Supreme Court

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Application of TP methods reviewed by the Swiss Supreme Court

Sponsored by

Sponsored_Firms_deloitte.png
TP rules in Switzerland considered by the Supreme Court

Manuel Angehrn and Kayla Eberli of Deloitte Switzerland discuss a Swiss Supreme Court case that considers transfer pricing methods.

Since there is no codified law in Switzerland regarding transfer pricing (TP) and its application for tax purposes, but based on the codified requirement to apply the arm’s-length principle in related party transactions, the OECD Guidelines are applied to the interpretation of the arm’s-length.

OECD-compliant pricing methods include the comparable uncontrolled price (CUP) method and the cost-plus remuneration method, among others.

The Swiss Supreme Court recently reviewed a dispute between a taxpayer and the tax authorities about the application of the appropriate TP methodology in a case to determine the arm’s-length nature of transactions between related parties. 

The taxpayer in the case centralised certain functions (such as treasury, administration, accounting support and payroll support) and charged these services to a low-taxed Swiss resident based on fees determined by application of the CUP method (supported by external price quotations for similar services). 

The tax authorities took the view that a cost-plus remuneration method was more appropriate in the circumstances. The court – outlining its practice – supported the view of the tax authorities that in this case a cost-plus remuneration method was more reasonable than pricing in accordance with the CUP method.

Since there is no codified TP regulation in Swiss law that would require one or the other methodology to be applied, the court assessed the facts of the case and gave its reasons why a tax authority can deviate from the methodology applied by a taxpayer. The court supported the view of the authorities for the following reasons:

  • The taxpayer was unable to provide evidence of any third party pricing of comparable services;

  • Third party quotations to provide certain services were obtained only after the inter-company pricing agreement was entered into; they did not covered the full range of services; and were not deemed to be comparable transactions (as the third party offers were not accepted, and so did not become comparable ‘real’ transactions);

  • The services provided to the taxpayer were deemed to be of an auxiliary or low-value-adding nature, for which the cost-plus remuneration method was deemed more appropriate; and

  • For the TP of low-value-adding or ‘auxiliary’ services, the court considered a cost plus 5% to be a safe harbour rule, but a range of cost +3% to +10% may be reasonable, depending on the documentation provided.

The court expressed its opinion with regard to TP rules in Switzerland and a preference towards the application of a cost-plus method with regard to auxiliary services. 

Even though the application of the rules allow the taxpayer to choose the method, tax authorities can challenge the TP methodology selected. 

Manuel Angehrn

Senior manager, Deloitte Switzerland

E: maangehrn@deloitte.ch

 

Kayla Eberli

Senior manager, Deloitte Switzerland

E: keberli@deloitte.ch

 

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Kingsley Napley’s claimants are arguing that taxing the provision of education breaches the European Convention on Human Rights
While pillar two can progress without the US, it won’t reach the same heights without American involvement, argues Renáta Bláhová, founding partner of BMB Partners Taxand
There are unanswered questions as to how foreign investors could reclaim money via tax credits, advisers suggested
Amid an ever-changing tax environment, India’s advisory market is bustling with competition ahead of the 2025 World Tax rankings and ITR Awards
The deal comes after PwC had accused Paul McNab of using confidential information; in other news, McDermott hired a new London tax head from a US rival
Looking at transfer pricing simplification is “obviously helpful”, but it should be done in line with current standards, a senior government figure reportedly said
The UK Government’s plans to close the tax gap via increased HM Revenue and Customs investment have failed to impress local tax advisers
Under the merged scheme for R&D tax relief introduced last year, rules on contracted out R&D have changed. James Dudbridge argues for a proactive approach when reviewing companies’ commercial arrangements
Cultural nuances could account for tax advisers’ perceived poor cost management, a local partner told ITR
Updated rules represent a significant shift in the Luxembourg TP landscape and emphasise the need for robust arm’s-length calculations, says Vanessa Ramos Ferrin of TransFair Pricing Solutions
Gift this article