Nissan loses with finance in court. The National Court rejects the appeal presented by the vehicle manufacturer, for which it must pay the debt of just over 12 million euros -between undisbursed quota and late-payment interest- from a record drawn up a decade ago for an expense that the inspection interpreted as non-deductible related to the costs associated with risks that corresponded to the main manufacturer, that is, the French subsidiary of the conglomerate.
The liquidation proposal was 9.3 million in installments and 2.7 million in default interest, as reflected in the sentence consulted by La Información. An increase in the tax base for 2005 for 28.5 million was regularized as guarantee cost, an amount that the Inspectorate understands is not deductible because the Spanish division was configured as an assembler for the main manufacturer, the French company of the group , Nissan Europe SAS
The Tax Agency raised the possibility of initiating an arbitration procedure with its counterpart in France, regarding the elimination of a potential double taxation in the event of correction of profits of associated companies. Nissan formally applied. Five years later, the French authorities did not agree. They closed the procedure because they understood that the allocation to provisions for guarantees associated with the sale of vehicles in Spain, which corresponds to the assumption of the costs associated with the risk of the guarantees, did not allow the deduction. In Spain they assumed these arguments as their own and this door was closed.
Nissan tried to grab on to the burning nail of an extraordinary appeal for review before the Economic Court of the Agency, alleging that a series of documents of “essential value” for the decision had appeared during the arbitration procedure initiated with France. This possibility was also denied. Only the judicial route will remain. And the National Court to try to reopen the case. Now the sentence that has just been issued slams the door again.
The company directed by Bruno Mattucci in Spain followed with a similar argument regarding new evidence in the friendly procedure. The Contentious Chamber of the Hearing understands that it cannot be said that the agreement to close the procedure -where these valuable data are included- has “appeared”, that is, that it has been found or found, but that it is the consequence of the process provided for in the European double taxation agreement.
A ten year case
In addition, the National Court insists that, beyond this formality, the fact that double taxation does not occur does not imply that the expense eliminated by the Inspection – the provision for guarantee on the vehicles produced, must be borne exclusively by the French company – was deductible in Spain. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the procedural costs are imposed on the company. The sentence, dated December 9, is not final, since there is still a loophole for the appeal in the Supreme Court (TS).
In the past 2022 there was also a case of a multinational that also resorted to a friendly procedure with authorities from another European country. This is the video game giant Nintendo. He requested arbitration before the Tax Agency in Spain and Germany. It does so in order to confirm whether there has been double taxation in its local operations in recent years. Finally, in 2021 both authorities reached an agreement for the liquidation of Corporate and VAT taxes, without revealing the final content.