English Summary
1. Allocation of the Burden of Proof and the Role of Prima Facie Evidence in Transfer Pricing Procedures
In transfer pricing procedures involving multinational enterprises, the allocation of the burden of proof is crucial. Under the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and Article 9(2) of the OECD Model Tax Convention, the burden typically lies with the challenging tax authority. However, its application is ultimately governed by domestic law. Where the authority bears this burden, it must provide prima facie evidence of non-arm’s length pricing, while taxpayers are expected to submit relevant accounting records. In some jurisdictions, failure to cooperate may permit estimated assessments—similar to Taiwan’s Articles 83 and 43-1 of the Income Tax Act.
Prima facie evidence, rooted in European legal tradition, refers to evidence that supports a factual claim unless rebutted. In transfer pricing, authorities may cite prices below cost or market rates as prima facie evidence of non-arm’s length dealings, prompting taxpayers to justify such pricing with valid commercial reasons. For intangible asset transfers, where valuations are uncertain, ex post results may be used to assess whether ex ante pricing projections were reasonable. Unexplained discrepancies may suggest flawed pricing assumptions.
2. The BenQ Transfer Pricing Dispute and Overview of the Italian Court’s Rulings
2.1 Reaffirmation of the Burden of Proof in Transfer Pricing by the Italian Supreme Court
On January 18, 2022, the Italian Supreme Court ruled (Sentenza Cassazione Civile No. 1374/2022) that in cases of deviation from the arm’s length principle, the burden of proof rests with the tax authority. The Court underscored the need for solid legal reasoning and evidence, reinforcing fair standards and protecting taxpayer rights in transfer pricing disputes.
2.2 Background of the BenQ Litigation and the Tax Adjustments
The plaintiff, BENQ ITALY SRL, a subsidiary of Taiwan’s BenQ Group, challenged the Italian tax authority’s 2003 assessment of corporate and regional production taxes (IRAP). Authorities alleged the company used its Dutch affiliate, BenQ Europe BV, as a conduit to purchase goods from low-tax jurisdictions without economic substance. Consequently, they denied mark-up deductions, recalculated taxable income using the “normal value” principle, and disallowed credit insurance expense deductions.
2.3 Procedural Developments and the Supreme Court’s Reasoning
The lower courts (CTP Milan and CTR Lombardy) upheld the tax authority’s position, citing a lack of economic justification for the Dutch intermediary and signs of profit shifting. BenQ Italy appealed, arguing the courts failed to prove its pricing lacked rationale. The Supreme Court agreed, overturned the rulings, and remanded the case, instructing the lower courts to reassess the transfer pricing with concrete evidence.
3. Interpretation of the Burden of Proof in Transfer Pricing by the Italian Supreme Court — A Point Worthy of Consideration for Taiwanese Enterprises
The Italian Supreme Court, addressing BenQ Italy’s claim of inadequate transfer pricing review, reaffirmed that in such cases, the tax authority must prove pricing deviates from market conditions and that an independent transaction would yield higher taxable income (Cass. Civ. No. 5645/2020). Tax avoidance intent is irrelevant to this assessment.
Additionally, precedent (Cass. Civ. No. 898/2019) clarified that the tax authority must first show, using methods like those in the OECD Guidelines, that related-party prices fall below market levels. Only then does the burden shift to the taxpayer to justify the pricing as market-compliant.
中文部分
以下重點摘要[台商全球供應鏈應注意移轉訂價－淺談國際上移轉訂價舉證責任分配規則]一文
原文刊載於[產業雜誌]，2025年5月，70頁以下，當期雜誌目錄： 工業總會服務網 — 民國114年05月
一、移轉訂價程序中舉證責任的歸屬與初步證據
在跨國企業的移轉訂價程序中，舉證責任的歸屬問題具有關鍵意義。根據OECD移轉訂價指引及稅約範本第9條第2項，當一締約國稽徵機關質疑關係企業之間的交易定價時，原則上應由該稅務機關負擔舉證責任。然而，各國實務上仍須依其內國法進一步判斷責任歸屬。在此制度架構下，若稽徵機關需負舉證責任，應提出初步證據證明訂價不符合常規交易原則，納稅人亦需提供帳冊資料供審查。部分國家甚至允許在納稅人未盡協力義務時，稽徵機關推估課稅，與台灣所得稅法第83條與第43條之1之並用機制類似。
進一步探討「初步證據」的法律意涵，該詞源自歐洲證據法傳統，指表面上足以推斷某一事實成立的證據，除非對方提出反證推翻之。以移轉訂價爭議為例，若某國稅局指出委託代工價格低於製造成本及市場價格，即構成合理初步證據，台商需提出商業理由反駁，例如終端售價偏低或比較對象不具可比性。又例如涉及無形資產交易時，交易後的實際結果可作為驗證事前預測的依據，若預測與結果差異過大且缺乏合理解釋，即可能反映訂價安排不具合理性。
二、明基移轉訂價訟案始末與義大利法院裁判概述
義大利最高法院對移轉訂價舉證責任的重申
2022年1月18日，義大利最高法院在判決（Sentenza Cassazione Civile n. 1374/2022）中明確指出，在關係企業間交易價格偏離獨立企業原則的情況下，舉證責任應由稽徵機關承擔。此判決強調，稽徵機關必須提出嚴謹的論證與充分的證據資料，展現出對跨國企業課稅過程中應有的證明標準與權責均衡，為移轉訂價爭議中的納稅人權利提供保障。
明基移轉訂價訴訟背景與稅務調整內容
案件原告為 BENQ ITALY SRL（義大利明基公司），為台灣明基集團控制的子公司。該公司不服義大利稅務機關針對其2003年度所得稅與區域生產稅（IRAP）所做的調整。稽徵機關認為義大利明基公司透過荷蘭控股公司 BenQ Europe BV（荷蘭中介公司）從低稅負國購貨，該中介公司並未實際參與供應鏈，無經濟實質，因此否認其加價成本的扣除資格，並依「正常價值」原則重計應稅所得，另亦排除該公司支付的客戶信用保險費用。
訴訟進展與最高法院見解
一、二審法院支持稅務機關處分，認為荷蘭中介公司缺乏經濟合理性，且交易定價結構顯示有利潤移轉至低稅國之嫌。然而義大利明基公司上訴指出，前兩審未具體說明其交易結構與加價行為為何不具經濟合理性。最高法院接受此論點，撤銷原判決並發回重審，要求下級法院重新審查並就移轉訂價合理性進行具體舉證與評估。
三、義大利最高法院判決關於移轉訂價舉證責任的闡述－值得台商斟酌
針對義大利明基公司爭執下級法院關於移轉訂價調查不足，義大利最高法院首先依照判決先例，指出移轉訂價的案件，其舉證責任歸屬與內容應遵循以下原則（最高法院2020年3月2日5645號判決）：
- 稽徵機關必須證明關係企業間的交易價格異於市場條件。
- 企業是否意圖規避義大利稅法，並非移轉定價判斷的核心標準。
- 稽徵機關應證明若交易是由獨立企業進行，使得納稅人將獲得較高的應稅所得。
其次，判決先例也指出稅務機關在移轉訂價案件中(最高法院2019年1月16日898號判決)，應履行以下事實的證明義務：
- 首先，由稅務機關證明關聯企業之間的交易價格低於正常市場價格（透過市場比較方法，如 OECD 移轉訂價指引所建議的方法）。
- 只有當稅務機關證明交易價格確實低於市場標準時，才會轉移舉證責任給納稅人，要求其證明該交易價格仍屬於正常市場行為。
