Gerechtshof Amsterdam – ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2024:1928

GERECHTSHOF AMSTERDAM kenmerk 22/2419 11 juli 2024 uitspraak van de derde meervoudige belastingkamer op het hoger beroep van de inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, de inspecteur, alsmede op het incidentele hoger beroep van [X] B.V., gevestigd te [Z] , belanghebbende, gemachtigden: mrs. M.W.W. Veldhuizen, Y.M. Sanders en Chr. F. Kroes (Baker McKenzie te Amsterdam) tegen de uitspraak van 30 september 2022 in de zaak met kenmerk HAA 16/5664 van de rechtbank Noord-Holland (hierna: de rechtbank) in het geding tussen belanghebbende en de inspecteur.

1Ontstaan en loop van het geding 1.1.

De inspecteur heeft aan belanghebbende voor het boekjaar 2009/2010 een aanslag vennootschapsbelasting (hierna ook: Vpb) opgelegd, berekend naar een belastbare winst en belastbaar bedrag van € 352.755.902. Bij afzonderlijke beschikking is een bedrag aan belastingrente in rekening gebracht van € 9.232.269.

1.2.

Het daartegen gemaakte bezwaar heeft de inspecteur bij uitspraak, gedagtekend 9 november 2016, afgewezen.

1.3.1.

Belanghebbende heeft tegen de uitspraak op bezwaar beroep ingesteld bij de rechtbank.

1.3.2.

Bij tussenuitspraak van 30 september 2019 heeft de rechtbank als volgt op het beroep beslist (belanghebbende en de inspecteur worden in deze tussenuitspraak, evenals in de hierna vermelde uitspraken van de rechtbank aangeduid als ‘eiseres’ respectievelijk ‘verweerder’): “De rechtbank:

1.3.3.

Bij tussenuitspraak van 22 april 2020 heeft de rechtbank als volgt op het beroep beslist: “De rechtbank:

1.3.4.

Bij uitspraak van 30 september 2022 (hierna ook: einduitspraak) heeft de rechtbank als volgt op het beroep beslist: “De rechtbank:

1.4.

Het tegen de einduitspraak door de inspecteur ingestelde hoger beroep is bij het Hof ingekomen op 7 november 2022. Bij brief van 12 december 2022 heeft de inspecteur het hoger beroep nader gemotiveerd.

1.5.

Bij brief van 20 januari 2023 heeft belanghebbende tegen de einduitspraak incidenteel hoger beroep ingesteld. Bij brief van 20 maart 2023 heeft belanghebbende haar incidentele hoger beroep nader gemotiveerd en tevens een verweerschrift ingediend.

1.6.

Met dagtekening 11 april 2023 heeft de inspecteur zijn schriftelijke zienswijze omtrent het incidenteel hoger beroep alsmede een conclusie van repliek ingediend.

1.7.

Met dagtekening 6 juni 2023 heeft belanghebbende een conclusie van dupliek ingediend. De inspecteur heeft hierop gereageerd met een nader stuk, gedagtekend 15 november 2023.

1.8.

Het onderzoek ter zitting heeft plaatsgevonden op 29 november 2023. Van het verhandelde ter zitting is een proces-verbaal opgemaakt dat met deze uitspraak wordt meegezonden.

2Feiten 2.1.

De rechtbank heeft in haar tussenuitspraak van 30 september 2019 de volgende feiten vastgesteld: “1. Eiseres maakt onderdeel uit van [bedrijf 1] (hierna: [bedrijf 1] ). [bedrijf 1] is in 1902 opgericht en heeft haar hoofdkantoor in [plaats 1] (Verenigde Staten van Amerika) en verschillende productiefaciliteiten verspreid over diverse continenten, waaronder Europa. [bedrijf 1] is een van de grootste verwerkers van agrarische grondstoffen ter wereld. [bedrijf 1] verwerkt deze grondstoffen tot ingrediënten voor de levensmiddelenindustrie, ingrediënten voor de diervoederindustrie, duurzame brandstoffen en alternatieven voor industriële chemicaliën.

Deze vennootschappen vormen een fiscale eenheid voor de vpb.

Per 1 juli 2009 is [bedrijf 4] voor een periode van 5 jaar een Bulk Terminal and Manufacturing Services Agreement met [bedrijf 6] aangegaan. Onder deze overeenkomst verricht [bedrijf 4] overslag, opslag en verwerking ten behoeve van [bedrijf 6] . [bedrijf 4] krijgt een vergoeding van 8,7 percent als marge bovenop haar kosten (exclusief de kosten van onbewerkte materialen, die worden gekocht door en eigendom zijn van [bedrijf 6] ). [bedrijf 4] verricht per genoemde datum op grond van een Consulting services and assistence in conducting business activities agreement administratieve en logistieke diensten aan [bedrijf 6] . Deze diensten worden eveneens op basis van een costplus van 8,7 percent vergoed. [bedrijf 4] - [bedrijf 2] [bedrijf 4] heeft aan [bedrijf 2] voorraad voor een bedrag van EUR 4.829.885,56 (inclusief btw) en vorderingen voor een bedrag van EUR 1.517.131,36 (inclusief btw) overgedragen. [bedrijf 2] - [bedrijf 6] Met ingang van 1 juli 2009 verricht [bedrijf 2] customer sales support en marketing diensten aan [bedrijf 6] . Aan de hand van de zogenoemde transactional net margin method wordt de vergoeding voor [bedrijf 2] bepaald aan de hand van twee factoren: (i) een kostencomponent (volledige compensatie van alle aan de diensten gerelateerde kosten) en (ii) een marketing gerelateerde commissie, berekend als een percentage van de [bedrijf 6] verkopen aan specifieke klanten ten behoeve van wie [bedrijf 2] diensten verricht, te weten 0,1 percent voor verkoop van oliezadenmeel en olie door [bedrijf 6] en 0,5 percent voor de verkoop van cacao door [bedrijf 6] . [bedrijf 3] - [bedrijf 6] Blijkens het bepaalde onder E van de preambule van de Asset Sale and Purchase Agreement tussen [bedrijf 3] en [bedrijf 6] van 30 juni 2009 is het uitgangspunt voor deze overeenkomst geweest dat partijen de gezamenlijke wens hebben ‘the rights, title, interest in and to certain assets of [bedrijf 3] Operation relating tot the Procurement Activity and the Sales Activity’ over te dragen. In het bepaalde onder B wordt de Procurement Activity omschreven als: ‘the sourcing of cocoa beans, cocoa butter, cake, liquor and powder products’. In hetzelfde onderdeel van de preambule wordt de Sales Activity omschreven als: ‘the selling of cocoa beans, cocoa butter, cake, liquor and powder products and cocoa products blended with other ingredients’. Op grond van deze overeenkomst heeft [bedrijf 3] Cocoa aan [bedrijf 6] verkocht en overgedragen:

Per 1 juli 2009 is [bedrijf 3] voor een periode van vijf jaar een Manufacturing Services Agreement met [bedrijf 6] aangegaan. Onder deze overeenkomst biedt [bedrijf 3] grondstofbewerking voor bepaalde producten aan [bedrijf 6] op basis van consignatie. [bedrijf 3] krijgt een vergoeding van 8,7 percent als marge bovenop de productiekosten (exclusief de kosten van onbewerkte materialen, die worden gekocht door en eigendom zijn van [bedrijf 6] ). [bedrijf 3] verricht per genoemde datum op grond van een Consulting services and assistence in conducting business activities agreement administratieve en logistieke diensten aan [bedrijf 6] . Deze diensten worden eveneens op basis van een costplus van 8,7 percent vergoed.

2.2.

Nu de hiervoor vermelde feiten door partijen op zichzelf niet zijn bestreden, zal ook het Hof daarvan uitgaan. Het Hof voegt hieraan de volgende feiten toe.

2.3.

Tot de in eerste aanleg door belanghebbende overgelegde stukken behoort een door Ceteris Inc. tezamen met Transfer Pricing Associaties opgesteld transfer pricing rapport, gedagtekend 30 juni 2006 (‘Transfer Pricing Documentation [X] Financial Year 2005’, hierna: het Ceteris-rapport). In het Ceteris-rapport is onder meer het volgende opgenomen (weergave zonder voetnoten): “4. Functional Analysis 4.1 Introduction The Functional Analysis is a presentation of the identified functions performed, risks assumed, and intangible property utilized by the economically significant companies within a taxpayer’s organization. The analysis presents the facts and circumstances surrounding the business of the taxpayer related to tangible, intangible, services, and inter-company loan transactions. In this Functional Analysis, the functions and risks are organized to reflect [bedrijf 1] ’s and specifically [X] ’ value chain. The facts are organized into the key sections listed below.

Operational Groups Commodity Processing Group (“CPG”) – this section discusses the initial processing of commodity products and the sale of processed products to third parties and related parties.

Specialty Processing Group (“SPG”) – this section addresses the further processing of products and the sale of these finished products to third parties and related parties. (…) Service & Loan Groups Trading Services Group (“TSG”) – this section addresses the procurement of commodity products necessary for the processing functions of [X] .

Global / Regional Corporate Services Group (“CSG”) – this section discusses the various global and regional corporate services provided to [X] (…) 4.2 Commodity Processing Group (…) 4.2.2 Oilseeds (…) [X] CPG (i.e., [bedrijf 4] BV) is engaged in processing (i.e., crushing) oilseeds such as soybeans into oils and meals principally for the food and feed industries. (…) Products made through this process are sold to third parties in the food, chemical, and industrial industries and related parties (e.g., SPG) for further processing or distribution (e.g., [bedrijf 7] BV). When selling to related and third parties, the CPG processing plant’s compensation will equal the independent market price of the underlying commodity plus a processing markup or an equivalent third party price.

When products are sold to third parties, the transactions are generally executed through frame contracts. (…) Generally, frame contracts include a description of the product sold, quantity of the product sold, packaging requirements for shipping, shipment terms, and pricing and payment terms detail. [bedrijf 1] enters into these contracts with third-party buyers regularly.

4.2.3 Cocoa [bedrijf 1] processes (i.e., crushes) cocoa beans into cocoa powder, cocoa butter, cocoa cake and cocoa liquor. In the Netherlands [bedrijf 1] has cocoa processing plant at [bedrijf 3] BV at [plaats 2] and storage facilities at [plaats 3] . (…) Products made through this process are sold to third parties in the confectionery, bakery, dairy, and beverage industries or to related parties (e.g. a DG or SPG) for further processing. 1f sold to a SPG, the SPG further process the powder, butter, cake, and liquor into specialty products for customers, including chocolate and cocoa ingredients. When selling to related and third parties, the CPG processing plant’s compensation will equal the independent market price of the underlying commodity plus a processing markup or an equivalent third party price.

When products are sold to third parties, the transactions are generally executed through frame contracts. (…) 4.4 Service Functions (…) 4.4.1 Trading Coordination Services 4.4.1.1 Introduction The TSG coordinates the procurement, movement, and sale of commodities and processed commodities for [bedrijf 1] . It is tasked with having strong market knowledge in [bedrijf 1] ’s various commodity and processed commodity products. The TSG also prepares, processes, and quality checks all necessary certificates and documentation in connection with these contracts.

The TSG has traders in various commodities and further processed commodities markets that constantly monitor conditions and maintain contact with independent traders. Additionally, trades are executed by traders located with the various [bedrijf 1] processing facilities. [bedrijf 1] executes physical contracts; that is, contracts are intended for the physical delivery of a product. (…) While the TSG coordinates the execution of these contracts, it is not an actual party to the contract. Rather, the [bedrijf 1] processing facility (e.g., any CPG or SPG facility) is party to the contract.

A TSG group can also operate within an [bedrijf 1] processing entity. For example, in [X] , in [bedrijf 3] BV there is an internal TSG which coordinates trading and procurement in cocoa related products for [bedrijf 3] BV. For grain trading, in contrast, the TSG at the [bedrijf 5] provides trading services to all European based oilseed processing entities including [bedrijf 4] BV of [X] instead of each oilseed plant having its own internal TSG group.

The inter-company services that the TSG provides are of direct benefit to CPG and SPG entities in the Netherlands such as [bedrijf 4] BV. While each processing plant ultimately makes its own trading decisions, the following [bedrijf 1] entities aid in the process by providing TSG trading services groups: (…)  [bedrijf 1] Germany – In Europe , [bedrijf 8] GmbH performs grain trading coordination services for the European based oilseed processing entities like [bedrijf 4] BV through the (“ [bedrijf 5] ”) for Europe .

4.4.1.2 Commodities Procurement In the Netherlands, the TSG of the [bedrijf 5] coordinates the procurement soybeans for [bedrijf 4] BV. The actual purchase of the commodities is performed by [bedrijf 4] BV.

Generally, [bedrijf 4] BV purchases soybean commodities from related and third parties, including farmers and independent companies (including competitors). In special cases, where production demands must be met and third-party commodity supply is low, [bedrijf 4] utilizes the TSG to coordinate the procurement of commodities from various related parties if reserves are available. In the rare event that there is an excess supply of commodities within [bedrijf 1] , TSG will coordinate the sale of [bedrijf 4] commodities to third parties. (…) 4.4.1.3 Processed Commodities Procurement In addition to coordinating the purchase of commodities, the TSG at the [bedrijf 5] coordinates the movement of processed products within [bedrijf 1] European grain group. These products include oilseed oil and meal, processed corn, and processed wheat that were processed by a CPG in the Netherlands like [bedrijf 4] BV and will be further processed by a SPG or sold by the DG.

In special cases, where production demands must be met and [bedrijf 1] ’s processed commodities supply is low, TSG coordinates the procurement of processed commodities from third parties, including competitors. (…) 6.4 The Provision of Trading Coordination Services by TSG to Certain CPG and SPG Entities (…) 6.4.2 [bedrijf 1] ’s Tranfer Pricing Policy (…) In Europe , [bedrijf 8] GmbH (through the [bedrijf 5] ) performs grain trading coordination services and charges on these expenses with a mark-up on total operating cost of 5.0 percent to European oilseed operations such as [bedrijf 4] B.V.

6.4.3 Analysis of Inter-company Transactions This section analyzes [bedrijf 5] ’s direct charge ad mark-up on total operating cost of 5 percent for trading coordination services in Europe . For the 12 months ending November 30, 2005, [bedrijf 5] incurred approximately $6.3 million of expenses related to trading coordination centres. (…) The next step of the [bedrijf 5] ’s trading coordination charge was determining the arm’s length nature of the markup. To facilitate this step, the Comparable Profits Method / Transactional Net Margin Method (“CPM/TNMM”) were applied. (…) To apply the CPP / TNMM, searches were performed for independent services companies in Europe that perform functions similar to those of the [bedrijf 5] .

To perform this search, SIC codes were selected to find companies with similar services activities in Europe . More specifically, a search for companies that provide services on a contract basis under long-term contracts and bear limited risks, was conducted. (…) 6.4.3.2. European Services Financial Results (…) In the 2005 fiscal year, the [bedrijf 5] applied a mark-up on total operating cost of 5.0 percent. This mark-up is within the ranges of determined by the sample of European services companies.”

2.4.

Op 20 februari 2009 heeft een overleg plaatsgevonden tussen de inspecteur en vertegenwoordigers van belanghebbende en haar toenmalige gemachtigde ( [adviseur] & Co [adviseur] , hierna: [adviseur] ). Tijdens deze bespreking heeft belanghebbende onder meer een overzicht gepresenteerd van de voorgenomen reorganisatie van het Nederlandse deel van het [bedrijf 1] -concern per 1 juli 2009 (hierna ook: de reorganisatie) en heeft zij geïnformeerd naar de mogelijkheden voor het verkrijgen van zekerheid vooraf over de fiscale gevolgen ervan. In een door [naam 1] ( [adviseur] ) opgesteld conceptmemorandum van deze bespreking, gedagtekend 24 februari 2009, is onder meer het volgende opgenomen: “3. Reorganization 3.1 Presentation [naam 2] [Hof: hoofd fiscale zaken bij [bedrijf 6] Sarl (hierna: [bedrijf 6] )] presented the information in the presentation (…). The following additional information has been provided:  [ [belanghebbende] will stay the main corporate holding company and a shared service centre; (…)  Currently 114 people are working at the headquarter [( [bedrijf 6] )] in Switzerland already. (…) The people who used to work at [bedrijf 9] GmbH have all been transferred, including the commercial management for oilseeds. (…)  (…) (…) [naam 2] explained that all cocoa management will move to Switzerland. As regards [bedrijf 4] BV, [naam 2] indicated that the management is already in Switzerland, and that maybe one or two persons will move. [naam 3] asked whether the entrepreneurial risk stays in the Netherlands. [naam 2] explained entrepreneurial risk will be transferred to Switzerland, were currently Switzerland is a coordination centre only; (…). (…) 4 Advance certainty 4.1 Remuneration / valuation [naam 2] indicated that he prefers a pragmatic approach which should be totally fair taken into account the challenging environment [bedrijf 1] is facing. [naam 2] asked about the procedures for getting the rulings. (…). [naam 4] [Hof: medewerker van de Belastingdienst] indicated that the functional analyses pre- and post conversion would be the starting point for the Dutch tax authorities. He indicated that if functions are transferred a valuation should be made. We agreed on preparing draft functional analyses for both [bedrijf 4] and [bedrijf 3] which we can then discuss with the Dutch tax authorities in a new meeting (…). [naam 4] also indicated that also any thoughts regarding the valuation can be discussed during that meeting.

4.2 Negative permanent establishment [naam 2] explained that there will be an agent in the Netherlands, instead of a buy/sell distributor.

Therefore [bedrijf 1] would like to have the confirmation from the Dutch tax authorities that [ [bedrijf 6] ] will not have a taxable presence in the Netherlands. [naam 1] asked about the form of this ruling. At his moment in time the Dutch tax authorities does not have a preference for either including this in the APA request or file a separate ruling request.”

2.5.

In de door de rechtbank in overweging 9 van haar uitspraak vermelde overeenkomsten die in het kader van de reorganisatie van het [bedrijf 1] -concern per 1 juli 2009 zijn gesloten, is onder meer het volgende opgenomen.

2.5.1.

In de tussen [bedrijf 4] B.V. (hierna: [bedrijf 4] ) en [bedrijf 6] gesloten ‘Asset Sale and Purchase Agreement’ is – voor zover hier van belang – het volgende bepaald (in deze overeenkomst is [bedrijf 4] aangeduid als ‘seller’ en [bedrijf 6] als ‘buyer’): “This Asset Sale and Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) is effective as of the lst of July 2009 (…) Preamble (…) B. Seller is engaged in, (i) the processing and refining of soybeans, rapeseeds, crude and refined oils, soybean and rapeseed meal and the production of soya protein concentrate and lecithin (the “Manufacturing Activity”); (ii) the unloading of vessels or trams into barges, trucks and trams for transportation to customers (the “Bulk Terminal Activity”); (iii) the selling of soybean, rapeseed, oil, meal soya protein concentrate and lecithin products to third party buyers and other companies within the [bedrijf 1] Group (the “Sales Activity”); and (iv) the procurement and trading of soybeans, rapeseed, meal, crude and refined oils, bio-diesel, corn oil, linseed oil and pellets and the selling of by-products of the Manufacturing Activity (the “Trading Activity”) (the Manufacturing Activity, the Bulk Terminal Activity, the Sales Activity and the Trading Activity collectively the “ [bedrijf 4] Operation ”).

C. The Parties intend to enter into a bulk terminal and manufacturing services agreement, according to which Seller will perform the Bulk Terminal Activity and Manufacturing Activity on behalf of Buyer as a bulk terminal operator and a manufacturer in accordance with the terms and specifications provided by Buyer.

D. The Parties intend to enter into intercompany services agreements, according to which Seller will perform accounting and logistic and customs brokerage services on behalf of Buyer in accordance with the terms and specifications provided by Buyer.

E. Seller desires to sell and transfer to Buyer and Buyer desires to purchase and acquire the rights, title, interest in and to certain assets of [bedrijf 4] Operation relating to the Sales Activity and the Trading Activity (with the exception of the those assets relating to linseed oil and pellets) with effect as of 7.30 am Dutch Time on the 1st of July 2009 (the “Effective Date”) and upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in this Agreement.

NOW, the Parties agree as follows:

1Sale and Transfer of Assets 1.1.

Sale and Transfer. In accordance with the terms of this Agreement, Seller hereby sells and transfers to Buyer and Buyer hereby purchases and acquires from Seller all of Seller’s right, title and interest in and to: (i) the Inventory as defined in Exhibit 1.1(i) (the “Inventory”), (ii) certain contracts within the trade book as defined in Exhibit 1.1(ii)2.1 (the “Trade Book”), (iii) the Accounts Receivable as defined in Exhibit 1.1(iii) (the “Accounts Receivable”), and (iv) certain Trademarks as defined in the Trademark Assignment Agreement in Exhibit l.1(iv) (the “Trademarks”), collectively the “Assets”, with effect as of the Effective Date.

1.2 Excluded Assets. The following assets and liabilities shall not form part of the Assets and are expressly excluded from the sale and transfer: (i) any assets relating exclusively or predominantly to the Manufacturing Activity or the Bulk Terminal Activity; (ii) any assets relating exclusively to the Trading Activity in respect of linseed oil and pellets; and (iii) the liabilities of the [bedrijf 4] Operation as defined in Exhibit 1.2(ii) (collectively with section 1.2(i) and 1.2(u), the “Excluded Assets”). (…) 2. Assumption of Contracts 2.1 Assumption. Except for the Excluded Contracts set forth in Section 2.2, Buyer hereby assumes with effect as of the Effective Date from Seller any and all contracts, orders and contractual offers with principal obligations not yet fully performed by the parties thereto and which relate exclusively or predominantly to the Trading Activity (with the exception of those contracts relating to linseed oil and pellets) and Sales Activity including, the Trade Book together with the contracts with business partners as of 1 July 2009 listed in Exhibit 2.1 (collectively the “Assumed Contracts”).

Buyer’s assumption of the Assumed Contracts includes the assumption of all rights and obligations of Seller under or in connection with these Assumed Contracts with full discharge of the original contract party. (…) 2.5.

Transfer of Risk Management Instruments. Seller undertakes to assign and transfer to Buyer any futures, hedges or similar risk management instruments that have been entered into regarding the transactions contained in the Trade Book (collectively the “Risk Management Instruments”) as of the Effective Date. (…) 3Consideration and Compensation 3.1.

Asset Purchase Price. The asset purchase price (the “Purchase Price”) to be paid by Buyer to Seller shall be determined pursuant to the calculation method set forth in Exhibit 3.1.

3.2.

Payment of Purchase Price. Buyer shall, within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date, pay the Purchase Price to Seller.”

2.5.2.

In bijlage 3.1 bij de onder 2.5.1 vermelde, tussen [bedrijf 4] en [bedrijf 6] gesloten overeenkomst is onder meer het volgende opgenomen: “Exhibit 3.1 Asset Purchase Price Calculation Method I. Inventory All stocks of inventory will be valued at market prices as of 30 June 2009.

II. Value embedded in order book contracts - contracts with fixed prices a. Value of purchase contracts:

Market prices as of 30 June 2009 less Agreed purchase prices in all forward contracts = Profit/loss * Agreed purchase volume = Profit/loss embedded in all purchase contracts b. Value of sales contracts:

Agreed sales prices in all forward contracts less Market prices as of 30 June 2009 = Profit/loss * Agreed sales volume = Profit/loss embedded in all sales contracts c. Value of foreign exchange contracts, MATIF futures, Chicago Board of Trade futures & future freight arrangements Agreed traded price for the transaction +/- Market price as of 30 June 2009 = Gain/loss * Volume of futures transaction = Profit/loss embedded in the transaction III. Contracts with fixed volume and delivery date, but not yet fixed prices Rapeseed purchase contracts without a fixed price are excluded from the order book valuation as valuing at market has no material impact. All other contracts (sale or purchase) without a fixed price are treated as normal price fixed contracts after being price fixed using the pricing mechanism embedded in the contract.

IV. Accounts Receivable Accounting book value as of 30 June 2009 with bad debt being taken into consideration through the application of the general and specific provisions held; converted to Euro at the [bedrijf 1] month-end exchange rate.

V. Trademarks Trademark ‘ [Handelsmerk 1] ’ €158,123 Trademark ‘ [Handelsmerk 2] ’ €159,650 Total €317,773 For the avoidance of doubt, the valuation methodology underlying the pricing of all of the above assets is intended to give rise to a market value price and is exclusive of VAT if VAT is applicable.”

2.5.3.

In de tussen [bedrijf 3] (hierna: [bedrijf 3] ) en [bedrijf 6] gesloten ‘Asset Sale and Purchase Agreement’ is onder meer het volgende bepaald (in deze overeenkomst is [bedrijf 3] aangeduid als ‘seller’ en [bedrijf 6] als ‘buyer’): “This Asset Sale and Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) is effective as of the lst of July 2009 (…) Preamble (…) B. Seller is engaged in, (1) the sourcing of cocoa beans, cocoa butter, cake, Iiquor and powder products (the “Procurement Activity’); (ii) the processing of cocoa beans for the production of cocoa butter, cake, liquor and powder products, the blending of cocoa products with other ingredients, the packaging of cocoa products and the storage of cocoa beans and cocoa products (the “Manufacturing Activity”) and (iii) the selling of cocoa beans, cocoa butter, cake, liquor and powder products and cocoa products blended with other ingredients (the “Sales Activity”); (…) (the Procurement Activity, the Manufacturing Activity and the Sales Activity collectively the “ [bedrijf 3] Operation ”).

C. The Parties intend to enter into a manufacturing services agreement, according to which Seller will perform the Manufacturing Activity on behalf of Buyer as a manufacturer in accordance with the terms and specifications provided by Buyer.

D. The Parties intend to enter into intercompany services agreements, according to which Seller will perform accounting and logistic and customs brokerage services on behalf of Buyer in accordance with the terms and specifications provided by Buyer.

E. Seller desires to sell and transfer to Buyer and Buyer desires to purchase and acquire the rights, title, interest in and to certain assets of [bedrijf 3] Operation relating to the Procurement Activity and the Sales Activity with effect as of 7.30 am Dutch Time on the 1st of July 2009 (the “Effective Date”) and upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in this Agreement.

NOW, the Parties agree as follows:

1Sale and Transfer of Assets 1.1 Sale and Transfer. In accordance with the terms of this Agreement, Seller hereby sells and transfers to Buyer and Buyer hereby purchases and acquires from Seller all of Seller’s right, title and interest in and to: (i) the Inventory as defined in Exhibit 1.1 (i) (the “Inventory”), (ii) certain contracts within the trade book as defined in Exhibit 1.1(ii) (the “Trade Book”), (iii) the Accounts Receivable as defined in Exhibit 1.1(iii) (the “Accounts Receivable”), (iv) certain Trademarks as defined in the Trademark Assignment Agreement in Exhibit 1.1(v) (the “Trademarks”), collectively the “Assets”, with effect as of the Effective Date.

1.2 Excluded Assets. The following assets and liabilities shall not form part of the Assets and are expressly excluded from the sale and transfer: (i) any assets relating exclusively or predominantly to the Manufacturing Activity; and (ii) the liabilities of the [bedrijf 3] Operation as defined in Exhibit 1.2(ii) (collectively with section 1.2(i), the “Excluded Assets”), (…) 3Consideration and Compensation 3.1.

Asset Purchase Price. The asset purchase price (the “Purchase Price”) to be paid by Buyer to Seller shall be determined pursuant to the calculation method set forth in Exhibit 3.1.

3.2.

Payment of Purchase Price. Buyer shall, within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date, pay the Purchase Price to Seller.”

2.5.4.

In bijlage 3.1 bij de onder 2.5.3 vermelde, tussen [bedrijf 3] en [bedrijf 6] gesloten overeenkomst is onder meer het volgende opgenomen: “Exhibit 3.1 Asset Purchase Price Calculation Method I. Inventory All stocks will be valued at market prices as of June 30th 2009.

II. Sales & Purchase Contracts a. Value of purchase contracts:

Bean, Butter, and Liquor purchase contracts will be valued at market prices as of June 30, 2009, as follows: [future class 1] Market prices as of June 30th 2009 less Agreed purchase prices in all forward contracts = Profit/loss * Agreed purchase volume remaining = Profit/loss embedded in all purchase contracts Any solids contracts will be valued at reflective solids market prices as of June 30th 2009. b. Value of sales contracts:

Bean, Butter, and Liquor sales contracts will be valued at market prices as of June 30, 2009, as follows: [future class 1] Market prices as of June 30th 2009 less Agreed sales prices in all forward contracts = Profit/loss * Agreed sales volume remaining = Profit/loss embedded in all sales contracts Any solids contracts will be valued at reflective solids market prices as of June 30th 2009. c. Value of Foreign Exchange contracts, Contracts with [future class 1] ( [future class 1] ), and [future class 2] ( [future class 2] ).

Agreed traded price for the transaction +/- Market price as of June 30th 2009 = Gain/loss * Volume of futures transaction = Profit/loss embedded in the transaction III. Contracts with fixed volume and delivery date, but not yet fixed prices Certain sales contracts and bean purchase contracts will not yet have all pricing agreed upon as of June 30, 2009. These contracts are still considered a part of the commodity position. For these contracts a June 30, 2009 value per the applicable market prices will be assumed. Thus there will be no position impact for these contracts.

IV. Accounts Receivable Accounting book value as of 30 June 2009 with bad debt being taken into consideration through the application of the general and specific provisions held; converted to Euro at the [bedrijf 1] month-end exchange rate.

V. Trademarks € For the trademark ‘ [Handelsmerk 3] ’ 13,572,611 For all other trademarks 1 ------------- Total 13,572,612 (…) For the avoidance of doubt, the valuation methodology underlying the pricing of all of the above assets is intended to give rise to a market value price and is exclusive of VAT if VAT applicable.”

2.6.

Bij brief van 20 november 2009 (met 14 bijlagen) heeft [adviseur] de inspecteur namens belanghebbende op de hoogte gesteld van het feit dat de voorgenomen reorganisatie inmiddels per 1 juli 2009 had plaatsgevonden. In deze brief is onder meer het volgende opgenomen: “As discussed earlier with you and your colleagues (…) during our meeting on 22 February 2009, for the last two years [ [bedrijf 1] ] has been reorganizing its business structure in Europe . With this letter we want to inform you in more detail about the reorganization of the activities of the different [bedrijf 1] legal entities in the Netherlands.

1Introduction The current reorganization comes as part of a series of actions taken by [bedrijf 1] management over the last several years to align European operations to [bedrijf 1] global corporate strategy. (…) As part of this new alignment effort, in October 2007 [bedrijf 1] announced the formation of a new [bedrijf 1] regional headquarters and commercial trading company based in [plaats 6] , Switzerland ([ [bedrijf 6] ]) for its European operations. [bedrijf 6] was established to perform the function of the corporate headquarters for the European Oilseeds, Biofuels, Cocoa and Specialty Oils and Fats divisions of [bedrijf 1] in Europe . (…) With the introduction of the [bedrijf 6] , the main focus of local manufacturing facilities were reorganized towards production efficiency of the plants in the different European countries. Post-reorganization, the overall capacity utilization of the local European processing facilities and optimization of the efficiency of the supply chain became the sole responsibility of [bedrijf 6] with the full risk or “entrepreneur” risk of the Oilseeds, Biofuels, Cocoa and Specialty Oils and Fats operations passing to [bedrijf 6] upon reorganization. [bedrijf 6] has also become the sole corporate headquarters of [bedrijf 1] operations in Europe . (…) 2Dutch reorganization On 1 July 2009, the Dutch based [bedrijf 1] Oilseeds operations at [bedrijf 4] and [bedrijf 1] operations at [ [bedrijf 3] ] were reorganized into the new [bedrijf 6] operational business model. As a result, as of 1 July, 2009 the traders of the commercial team of [bedrijf 6] in [plaats 6] are responsible for the trading positions of all Oilseeds and Cocoa products within the pan-European supply chain. The commercial team at [bedrijf 6] negotiates, agrees, and signs both sales and purchase contracts for raw materials and all (semi-)finished products. Post 1 July, the Dutch resident [bedrijf 1] group companies [bedrijf 3] BV and [bedrijf 4] BV provide manufacturing services, including services that are directly related to these manufacturing services. In addition, sales- and marketing support services are provided by a new trading division of [bedrijf 2] BV.

As part of the July 1, 2009 reorganization of their business models, [bedrijf 6] purchased the existing trading positions of [bedrijf 4] BV and [bedrijf 3] BV for their fair market value. The respective trading positions included all inventory, purchase contracts, sales contracts and hedges concluded in relation to these positions. In addition, on 1 July 2009 [bedrijf 6] purchased all registered trademarks and brand names from [bedrijf 3] BV and [bedrijf 4] BV for fair market value. These purchase transactions resulted in a total net gain for [bedrijf 4] BV of 4,283,509 EUR and a total net loss for [bedrijf 3] BV of 4,048,068 EUR (Please see Appendix 2 for Summary schedule). [bedrijf 4] BV and [bedrijf 3] BV remain owner of the processing plants and equipment used for the provision of the manufacturing processing services.

Per established best practice in the context of business reorganization rulings, we have also prepared a valuation analysis for [bedrijf 4] BV (appendix 3) and [bedrijf 3] BV (appendix 4) operations upon their reorganization to the [bedrijf 6] commercial business model on 1 July 2009. The valuation analysis entails an analysis and valuation of expected future cash flows and has been based on historical figures taking into account current market developments. Taking a medium or average view results would yield a positive 31,896,969 EUR intangible value for [bedrijf 3] BV and a negative 24,181,144 EUR intangible value for [bedrijf 4] BV.

2.1 Manufacturing Processing Services As per July 1, 2009, [bedrijf 4] BV and [bedrijf 3] BV provide manufacturing and processing services to [bedrijf 6] under the terms of a manufacturing services agreement. [bedrijf 6] is the owner of all raw materials and semi-finished products processed at the [bedrijf 4] BV and [bedrijf 3] BV owned manufacturing processing facilities. For a more detailed description of the processing services, we refer to the Functional analysis (appendix 5) and manufacturing services agreements (appendix 6 and 7).

2.1.1 Remuneration policy Under the terms of the manufacturing services agreement, [bedrijf 4] BV and [bedrijf 3] BV are remunerated on a net cost plus basis. The mark up is based on a benchmark study (appendix 8) which has been attached as an annex to the functional analysis. Based on the benchmarking study the net cost plus mark up for processing services provided by the Dutch consignment manufacturers has been determined at 8.7%.

Based on the most recent financial information, the agreed remuneration policy results in an expected annual operating profit of approximately in the next financial year: [bedrijf 4] BV (manufacturing processing services EURO 7.600,000 and processing related services) [bedrijf 3] BV (manufacturing processing services EURO 6,500,000 and processing related services) Please see a view of the last 5 years annual operating results of [bedrijf 4] BV and [bedrijf 3] BV in appendix 3 and 4 respectively. Given the high volatility in the commodity agricultural industry, the schedules show wide fluctuations in the annual operating results, including years with negative results, in comparison to the guaranteed profit noted above under the new business model for both companies.

2.2 Processing related services In addition to the actual manufacturing processing services themselves, the [bedrijf 4] BV and [bedrijf 3] BV also provide other support services to [bedrijf 6] that are directly related to the processing of products. These support services are directly related to the processing as they either have to be performed at the processing locations (e.g. quality checks) or near to the processing locations (eg. warehousing) (…). Nevertheless and for clarity purposes, separate service level agreements have been concluded with [bedrijf 6] by [bedrijf 4] BV and [bedrijf 3] BV in which these services have been identified (please see appendix 9 and 10).

2.2.1 Remuneration policy As the support services are directly related to the manufacturing processing services, it has been considered as reasonable to include these services in the overall manufacturing services. As a result of that, no separate benchmarks have been made for the various functions. (…) The support services are remunerated on a net cost plus basis with a mark up of 8.7%. (…) 3. Tax rulings As already discussed during our meeting in February 2009, we herewith request to confirm the Dutch tax consequences of the reorganization. This includes the following items:

2.7.

Als bijlage 3 bij de onder 2.6 vermelde brief van 20 november 2009 is een ‘Valuation Analysis [ [bedrijf 4] ]’ gevoegd. In deze door [adviseur] opgestelde analyse met dagtekening 19 november 2009 (‘DCF Model [bedrijf 4] BV – Draft for discussion purposes only’) is onder andere het volgende opgenomen (waarbij ‘WACC’ staat voor ‘weighted average cost of capital’ (gemiddelde gewogen kostenvoet van het eigen en vreemd vermogen)):

Draft valuation Summary (EUR) Discount factor WACC WACC WACC WACC WACC Current model 10% 11% 12% 13,0% 14% Consignment model 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Values Full fledged (going concern) 153.933.441 138.493.487 125.848.265 115.300.320 106.366.697 Consignment (going concern) 150.029.409 150.029.409 150.029.409 150.029.409 150.029.409 Intangible value 3.994.032 (11.535.922) (24.181.144) (34.729.089) (43.662.712) 2.8.

Als bijlage 4 bij de onder 2.6 vermelde brief van 20 november 2009 is een ‘Valuation analysis [bedrijf 3] BV’ gevoegd. In deze door [adviseur] opgestelde analyse met dagtekening 19 november 2009 (‘DCF Model [bedrijf 3] BV – Draft for discussion purposes only’) is onder andere het volgende opgenomen:

Valuation Summary (EUR) Discount factor WACC WACC WACC WACC WACC Current model 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% Consignment model 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Values Full fledged (going concern) 192.794.573 173.245.366 157.224.175 143.851.540 132.518.400 Consignment (going concern) 125.327.207 125.327.207 125.327.207 125.327.207 125.327.207 Intangible value 67.567.366 47.918.159 31.896.969 18.524.333 7.191.193 2.9.

Als bijlage 5 bij de onder 2.6 vermelde brief van 20 november 2009 is het door de rechtbank in overweging 5 vermelde en in overweging 6 op hoofdlijnen samengevatte [adviseur] -rapport ‘Dutch Functional Analysis. [bedrijf 3] BV & [bedrijf 4] BV Pre-2009 Reorganization and Post 2009 Reorganization’ (hierna: de Functionele Analyse) gevoegd. In de Functionele Analyse is – voor zover hier van belang – het volgende vermeld: “Executive Summary Headlines Purpose of Report • To assess the functions performed, risks borne and assets employed for the entities involved in the pre-reorganization and post-reorganization supply chain of [bedrijf 4] and [bedrijf 3] . (…) Overview of Project • [bedrijf 6] has been established as the new European Headquarters of [bedrijf 1] commercial and corporate group operations in Europa in November 2007.

It is intended for [bedrijf 6] to become the Principal of [bedrijf 1] ’s European commercial operations in a division by division and location by location supply chain reorganization. As the Principal, [bedrijf 6] will either perform, and/or direct the following [bedrijf 1] European group activities:

Functions, Risks • [bedrijf 6] will be the Principal in the new supply chain, responsible for and Assets performing or directing the following activities:

Procurement – Soy Beans

Procurement – Rapeseed

Procurement – Oils and other related products

Trading – Sales

Trading – Positions

Production

Below the current (January 2009) organizational chart of the [bedrijf 3] is provided. (…) Current State Operating Model -- [bedrijf 3] Operations Prior to Reorganization Transaction Flows under Current State Operating Model Introduction

Overview of Supply Chain

Trading – Procurement

Trading – Procurement

Procurement – Cocoa beans

2.10.

Op 1 december 2009 heeft een bespreking plaatsgevonden tussen vertegenwoordigers van belanghebbende en de inspecteur. Tijdens deze bespreking heeft [naam 2] ( Director International Tax van [bedrijf 6] ) een nadere toelichting op de reorganisatie gegeven aan de hand van een power point-presentatie met als titel ‘[ [bedrijf 1] ] Meeting with Dutch tax authorities (…) 1 December 2009’. In de slides van deze presentatie is onder meer het volgende vermeld:

Slide 8 “Pre-July 1 2009 Operating Model [bedrijf 3] BV and [bedrijf 4] BV purchase Raw Materials / Semi-Finished Products from suppliers worldwide, produce (Semi-)Finished Products and sell these products to customers in- and outside of Europe . (…). Each company operated with full risk and functions, e.g. each is responsible for its own production, planning, sourcing, sales support, pricing, administration.”

Op de desbetreffende slide is verder (door middel van een organigram) aangegeven dat [bedrijf 6] aan [bedrijf 4] en [bedrijf 3] “management services” verricht.

Slide 9 “Post July 1, 2009 Operating Model [ [bedrijf 6] ] purchases Raw Material / Semi-Finished Products from suppliers worldwide (…). [bedrijf 3] BV and [bedrijf 4] BV produce (Semi-)Finished Products under contract for [ [bedrijf 6] ]. [bedrijf 6] sells these products to customers inside and outside of Europe . In addition to providing manufacturing services to [ [bedrijf 6] ], [bedrijf 3] BV and [bedrijf 4] BV also provide administrative supportive services (i.e., logistics, execution and accounting). [bedrijf 2] BV is acting as the marketing support services provider in the Netherlands. (…).”

Op de desbetreffende slide is voorts (door middel van een organigram) aangegeven dat [bedrijf 4] en [bedrijf 3] aan [bedrijf 6] “Manufacturing services and administrative support services” verrichten.

2.11.

Na afloop van de bespreking van 1 december 2009 heeft de inspecteur bij e-mailbericht van 1 december 2009 een aantal vragen aan belanghebbende voorgelegd over de in de brief van 20 november 2009 (en de bijlagen daarvan) verstrekte informatie. [adviseur] heeft hierop namens belanghebbende geantwoord bij brief van 11 december 2009. In deze brief is onder meer het volgende vermeld (waarbij ‘EBIT’ staat voor ‘earnings before interest and taxes’): “For the purpose of [bedrijf 1] we have translated your questions in English.

As can be seen in sheet 3, the EBIT figures for [bedrijf 4] BV fluctuated significantly over time. Both losses as well as profits have been reported in the past. As is stated in the information model, the three year average EBIT figures amount to approximately EUR 7,5 mln, the average EBIT margin calculated over the last 3 financial years is 0.2%. Looking at the historical figures of a period of 3 years, we note that the EBIT margin is even lower and equal to -0.05%. (…) In the forecasting we assumed an EBIT margin of 0.4% which is approximately twice as high as the three year average and therefore considered high by [bedrijf 1] . The applied EBIT margin results in a forecasted average EBIT (5 year future average EURO 19,5 mln.) which is significantly higher as compared to all historical averages. Therefore, we concluded that the 0.4% margin is not unreasonable and as such could be used as a basis for the forecasting.

Similar to the [bedrijf 4] BV valuation, no long term forecasts are prepared regarding cocoa sourcing and selling operations. Therefore the EBIT forecasts for the year 2009/2010 have been determined by first looking at the historical trends. As can be seen from the years 2004/2005 to 2008/2009 a significant decrease in EBIT margins from approximately 10% to 8% to 5% to 2% is reported. Due to the current economic situation it is expected that [bedrijf 3] will have an even lower EBIT margin than last year which is in the current year close to 0%. Therefore, we have assumed the EBIT forecast for 2009/2010 at 1.5% which can be considered appropriate given the uncertain market circumstances (…).

We note that according to the most recent financial information for the current financial year, minimal profits are anticipated for the [bedrijf 3] performed by [bedrijf 6] . As the economic situation is likely to increase over the next years a steady EBIT growth of 0.5% per annum has been included for the purpose of the information model valuation.

A company’s WACC is the overall minimum required return (given cost of equity and the costs of debt) on the company as a whole that an investor would require given the risks assumed. Therefore, the WACC is generally regarded as the appropriate rate to use for discounting cash flows with a risk that is similar to that of the company (ie. on a stand alone basis).

As the risk of a full fledged company is obviously much higher than that of a consignment manufacturer, the WACC is expected to be higher as well. In other words, an investor would expect a higher return on investment for a more risky investment than it would for a low risk investment. Therefore, we note that the WACC of the consignment manufacturer should be lower than the WACC of the full fledged operations.

We revert to the two enclosed presentations outlining how the full fledged going concern WACC was derived for both [bedrijf 4] BV and [bedrijf 3] BV.

With regard to the consignment manufacturing activities, we note that no benchmark analysis can be performed on the WACC’s of consignment manufacturers similar to the method applied for the full fledged operations. This is due to a lack of an identifiable consignment manufacturing peer group in the available databases. However, in general and as also mentioned above, the risks assumed by a consignment manufacturing entity are considered to be very low. Therefore, and as a basis of determining the WACC of the consignment manufacturers the risk free rate was determined at 3.7%. This risk free rate is similar to the risk free rate that was used for the WACC calculations for the full fledged entities. The risk free rate is derived from the 10 year Dutch government bond as identified in the Bloomberg database.

Since the risk of the consignment operations can be considered higher than the risk free rate, a premium of 1.3% was added to risk free rate resulting in a WACC of 5%. This premium was derived from the Bloomberg peer group analysis for the full fledged going concern beta benchmark. Since the consignment manufacturers have a very limited risk profile, the beta is expected to be limited as well. Therefore a beta was applied similar to the 2.5% percentile of the unlevered beta’s of the full fledged peer group analysis. This results in a premium of 1.3%.

Further and since no debt (or working capital interest expense) is taken into account at the level of the consignment manufacturers the WACC is equal to the cost of equity. Therefore, when investing in a low risk activity of the consignment manufactures, a 35% premium would be realized over an investment in a Dutch government bond which can be considered appropriate.

Based on the above, the following formula for the consignment manufacturing WACC can be provided:

WACC = CoE = Risk Free Rate + (beta * ERP) 5% = 3.7% + (0.19 * 6.75%) As we understand it from [bedrijf 1] , the [bedrijf 1] investment discount rate is a minimum return [bedrijf 1] management would want from a project. According to [bedrijf 1] , the [bedrijf 1] investment WACC is at least 10%. We also understand from [bedrijf 1] that the [bedrijf 1] Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) made up of the seven most senior executives in [bedrijf 1] may decide that given the nature, kind and location of project or investment an even higher return is required of 15% or 20%.

We agree that when reviewing the figures it appears to be the case that a lower WACC is applied for the terminal value calculations. However, this can be explained by the fact that a terminal growth factor has been taken into account in the forecasting and the determination of the terminal value of the company. An annual increase is assumed at 1%, equal to the inflation rate which is also assumed at 1%. The formula used to determine the terminal value is the commonly applied and generally accepted Investment Model (Growing Free Cash Flows Model). The formula is derived from the Gordon Growth model and is as follows:

Free cash flows (WACC – Growth rate) The growth rate is the obviously similar to the terminal growth factor. For the avoidance of doubt, we note that a similar terminal value would be derived when for example a period of 50 years would be forecasted, taking into account a 1% growth factor, and discounted at the calculated WACC. The formula is regarded as a method for calculating this same value.”

2.12.

Ter voorbereiding van een voor 13 januari 2010 geplande vervolgbespreking heeft de inspecteur bij e-mailbericht van 12 januari 2010 een notitie aan [adviseur] gemaild. In deze notitie, met als onderwerp ‘ [bedrijf 1] – discussiestuk 13-1-2010’ is onder andere het volgende opgenomen (weergave zonder voetnoten): “1) Waardering [bedrijf 4] is € 125,8 mln bij Wacc 12 % en gemiddelde EBIT in drie voorafgaande jaren van € 7,5 mln. Dat is 16,8 * de gemiddelde EBIT over de drie voorafgaande jaren.

Waardering [adviseur] [bedrijf 3] is € 157,2 mln bij een gemiddelde EBIT in drie voorafgaande jaren van € 36,9 mln. Dat is 4,3 * de gemiddelde EBIT in drie voorafgaande jaren. Dat is een erg groot verschil in vermenigvuldigingsfactor t.o.v. de [bedrijf 4] waardering. Het verschil zou worden verklaard uit de dalende trend. Echter [bedrijf 1] zelf rapporteert stijgende resultaten. Zie bijvoorbeeld SEC 1Q FY 10 Earnings Release: (…). ‘Normalisatie’ van de waardering van ‘ [bedrijf 3] ’ naar 16,8 * de gemiddelde EBIT over de drie voorafgaande jaren zou een waardering betekenen van € 619,9 mln.

2.13. [adviseur] heeft in een aan [bedrijf 1] ( [naam 2] en [naam 5] ) gericht intern memorandum van 19 januari 2010, met als onderwerp ‘ [bedrijf 1] reorganization – meeting Dutch tax authorities’, verslag uitgebracht van de op 13 januari 2010 gehouden bespreking met de Belastingdienst. In dit memorandum is onder meer het volgende vastgelegd (waarbij ‘EBITDA’ staat voor ‘earnings before interest, tax, depreciations and amortizations’): “Summary other key items meeting We discussed the attached discussion document prepared by [naam 6] [Hof: medewerker van de Belastingdienst] describing the initial thoughts of the Dutch tax authorities as regards the valuation of the Dutch pre-[reorganization] operations. Summarized, the Dutch authorities are looking for objective parameters in order to substantiate the DCF valuation model as prepared by [bedrijf 1] / [adviseur] (…). In addition to market capitalization parameters, the Dutch tax authorities would like to receive all relevant information and calculations which are available within [bedrijf 1] in order to understand how [bedrijf 1] internally values the operations and in order to achieve an open and transparent position towards each other (…).

Main result of the meeting is that the Dutch tax authorities moved from their initial thought of using sales as key indicator resulting in a full-fledged value of approximately EUR 1.4 billion for the Dutch cocoa and oilseeds business. Based on the arguments provided, the Dutch tax authorities appeared to agree that an EBIT (or EBITDA) based ratio could provide a sanity check of an independent valuation as compared to sales. Also the following subjects have been discussed: (…) 6. [naam 6] is not comfortable yet with the 5% WACC for the consignment manufacturers as from his point of view the risk of the wider [bedrijf 1] group (i.e. [bedrijf 6] ) should to some extent be allocated to the toller as well as in his view, the risk profile of the group should be reflected in the risk profile of the consignment manufacturer. We indicated that we did not agree on this view (…).”

2.14.

In vervolg op de bespreking van 13 januari 2010 heeft belanghebbende op verzoek van de inspecteur bij brief van 1 februari 2010 nadere informatie verstrekt. In deze brief is – voor zover hier van belang – het volgende vermeld (weergave zonder voetnoten, waarbij ‘EBT’ staat voor ‘earnings before tax’): “During the meeting we discussed [bedrijf 1] ’s business reorganizations in July 2009 of its oilseeds and cocoa [bedrijf 3] in the Netherlands and the tax implications resulting from these reorganizations. We agreed to provide you with some further, additional supporting substantiation for (1) the outcome of our discounted cash flow valuation analysis and (2) (…).

1Substantiation discounted cash flow valuation analysis a. Comparable acquisition or disposal transactions As regards the discounted cash flow valuation analysis, you requested further substantiation / certainty on the arm’s length nature of the valuation results. In order to get a better understanding you requested information regarding recent acquisition or disposal transactions entered into by [bedrijf 1] . During our meeting we discussed the most recent [bedrijf 1] acquisition transactions (…). We explained that typically [bedrijf 1] is only interested in purchasing the underlying fixed assets (i.e. plant, property and equipment) of the acquired companies. As a result, the purchase price is typically allocated 100% to fixed assets only and not intangibles. Therefore, we concluded that [bedrijf 1] could not identify any comparable acquisition transactions from which a pricing method could be derived which we could use for additional substantiation of the valuation analysis. (…) b. Substantiation DCF valuation analysis — Market Capitalization During the meeting we also discussed the possibility of finding an objective and at the same time practical check for the valuation analysis determined for the operations of [bedrijf 3] BV and [bedrijf 4] BV. Regardless if it can be justified theoretically we agreed to determine if it is possible to find such an objective check by taking the market capitalization of [bedrijf 1] Inc. at the NYSE, as a starting point and subsequently allocate the market capitalization pro rata parte to the Dutch operations.

Mathematically various approaches can be taken in order to determine the pro rata value. (…) The outcome (i.e., intangible value calculated as full fledged values minus values current business model) can be summarized as follows:

EBT, the intangible value would equal EURO -/- 79,815,905 EBIT, the intangible value would equal EURO 1,473,284 EBITDA, the intangible value would equal EURO 38,600,017 Following from the DCF valuation analysis, the intangible value would equal EURO 7,715,825, by using a WACC of 12%. (…) Give the above we believe the results of the EBT, EBIT and EBITDA analysis do provide additional substantiation for the proposed intangible value.”

2.15.

Op 9 februari 2010 heeft opnieuw een bespreking plaatsgevonden tussen medewerkers van [adviseur] en de inspecteur over de fiscale gevolgen van de reorganisatie. Tijdens deze bespreking zijn onder meer de mogelijkheden van een compromis verkend. Nadat op 26 februari 2010 een aanvullende bespreking had plaatsgevonden, heeft [adviseur] bij e-mailbericht van 4 maart 2010 een samenvatting van deze bespreking aan de inspecteur verzonden. In dit e-mailbericht is onder andere het volgende vermeld: “Headlines possible agreement [bedrijf 1] – Dutch tax authorities 1. The taxable gain resulting from the business reorganization amounts to EUR 48,536,957. The latter will be achieved by using an adjusted discount-factor for the consignment manufacturer of 5,7%. (…) Dutch tax authorities prefer to translate the taxable gain upfront into a higher cost plus % applicable during the entire contract period. (…) To do: [bedrijf 1] will consider if this is acceptable for [bedrijf 1] also taken into account the commercial side and the corresponding deduction in Switzerland. (…) 4. A critical assumption/condition subsequent will be included in the tax ruling saying that no debt will be used for the contract manufacturing/ sales support activities and if debt is used the interest expenses will be included in the cost plus basis. (…) 7. [bedrijf 1] is not willing to agree upfront that in case of an early termination of the contract the consignment manufacturer is entitled to any type of indemnification or other type of compensation (e.g. indemnification of closing costs). To do: Dutch tax authorities will consider if this is acceptable in combination with the condition that in case the contract terminates the consignment manufacturer will be able to enter the market as a full fledge entrepreneur for free (no formal or informal step up for new client base / goodwill) and without any restrictions (e.g. competitor restrictions). To do: [bedrijf 1] will consider if the latter condition is acceptable.

2.16.

De inspecteur heeft bij e-mailbericht van 17 maart 2010 aan [adviseur] laten weten na intern overleg en mede vanwege voortschrijdend inzicht niet akkoord te kunnen gaan met een compromis langs de lijnen zoals die tijdens de besprekingen van 9 en 26 februari 2010 zijn verkend. In dit e-mailbericht heeft de inspecteur zijn standpunt onder meer als volgt toegelicht: “Naar de mening van de Belastingdienst neemt de ondernemer die zijn onderneming overdraagt aan een andere ondernemer (de principaal) en vervolgens van die principaal afhankelijk wordt voor het wel of niet doorgaan als CM [Hof: contract manufacturer] daarmee een belangrijk risico. Hij wordt immers volledig afhankelijk van de principaal voor het wel of niet door kunnen gaan als CM en haalt daarmee een aantal belangrijke risico’s naar binnen, te weten het risico van verbreken of niet verlengen van het CM contract, het risico van oninbaarheid en het faillissementsrisico van zijn principaal. De overdrager die de beslissing heeft genomen om het belangrijkste deel van zijn onderneming over te dragen aan een ander, is over dit risico ook niet meer in control.

Het is waar dat de CM met het verbreken of niet verlengen van het CM contract weer de gelegenheid krijgt om zijn fabrieken naar eigen inzichten als ondernemer aan te wenden maar de marktcondities waaronder dat zal geschieden zijn onzeker en het opnieuw verwerven van de functies en activa die nodig zijn voor het drijven van een fully fledged onderneming zal een onzekere investering vergen. Het is ook zeer de vraag in hoeverre dit scenario realistisch is. (…) Daarbij komt dat indien de CM het contract verbreekt de principaal in principe zijn directe concurrent wordt op het gebied van de niet “manufacturing-functies”. Die onzekerheid zou zich naar het oordeel van de Belastingdienst moeten reflecteren in een hogere wacc voor de CM maar zeker zou naar het oordeel van de Belastingdienst een ondernemer die voor de beslissing staat om zijn functionaliteit en daarmee zijn risicoprofiel en potentiële winstgevendheid belangrijk te verlagen daarvoor een vergoeding wensen te ontvangen.

Bij het bepalen van die vergoeding zal in ieder geval het risico van een kortere looptijd dan eeuwigdurend tot uiting moeten komen. De vergoeding kan in één keer worden bedongen als het verschil tussen fully fledged waarde en CM waarde. In een casus als de onderhavige is het in de visie van de Belastingdienst zo dat de toekomstige CM zijn niet direct gerealiseerde CM winstpotentieel zou willen vastleggen door middel van een ‘exit clausule’. (…) Voornoemde berekende CM-waarde zal naar mijn mening nog moeten worden aangepast met een meer realistische WACC die recht doet aan het risicoprofiel van de CM (…).”

Na dit bericht van de inspecteur zijn de gesprekken tussen belanghebbende en de inspecteur over de fiscale gevolgen van de reorganisatie gestaakt.

2.17.

Belanghebbende heeft op 28 september 2011 aangifte Vpb voor het boekjaar 2009/2010 gedaan naar een belastbare winst en een belastbaar bedrag van € 34.586.939. In deze aangifte (hierna ook: de aangifte Vpb) heeft belanghebbende in verband met de reorganisatie een overdrachtswinst verantwoord van € 1.831.037. Voorts heeft belanghebbende met dagtekening 28 september 2011 een begeleidende brief bij de aangifte Vpb aan de inspecteur toegezonden. In deze brief is – voor zover hier van belang – het volgende vermeld: “Please be informed that the 2009/2010 Dutch corporate income tax return of [belanghebbende] will be filed electronically today by Baker Tilly Berk . In this letter we will further explain the positions taken in this return.

1General On 1 July 2009, the Dutch based [bedrijf 1] Oilseeds operations at [bedrijf 4] BV and [bedrijf 1] operations at [bedrijf 3] BV were reorganized. In this respect we refer to our letter dated 20 November 2009 and the subsequent letters and discussions.

2Transfer all trading positions, trademarks and branch names As part of the July 1, 2009 reorganization, [ [bedrijf 6] ] purchased the existing trading positions of [bedrijf 4] BV and [bedrijf 1] BV for their fair market value. The respective trading positions included all inventory, purchase contracts, sales contracts and hedges concluded in relation to these positions. In addition, on 1 July 2009 [bedrijf 6] purchased all registered trademarks and brand names from [bedrijf 3] BV and [bedrijf 4] BV for fair market value. These purchase transactions resulted in a total net gain for [bedrijf 4] BV of EUR 4,283,509 and a total net loss for [bedrijf 3] BV of EUR 2,452,472.

We refer to the annex for a more detailed overview of the various results realized. As you may notice the loss for [bedrijf 3] BV slightly differ from the figures presented in our letter dated 20 November 2009. This however only relates to a change in actual figures and not to a change in the valuation method.

3Remuneration processing services and processing related services [bedrijf 4] BV and [bedrijf 3] BV remain owner of the processing plants and equipment used for the provision of the manufacturing processing services. Based on the benchmarking study provided as annex to our letter dated 20 November 2009 the net cost plus mark up for processing services as well as processing related services provided by the Dutch consignment manufacturers has been set at 8.7%. (…) 5. Other Dutch corporate income tax aspects During the earlier discussions we also brainstormed if a certain intangible value should be taken into account resulting from the reorganization. We agreed to postpone these discussions till the tax return is filed. As a result we have not taken a final position yet on this point in the tax return and suggest to organize a meeting as possible to discuss this point further. We will contact you for this in the course of next week.”

2.18.

Op 25 november 2011 heeft opnieuw een bespreking plaatsgehad tussen belanghebbende en de inspecteur, teneinde de mogelijkheden te verkennen om alsnog overeenstemming te bereiken over de fiscale gevolgen van de reorganisatie. Naar aanleiding van deze bespreking heeft [adviseur] bij brief van 13 juli 2012 de standpunten hierover van belanghebbende nader toegelicht. In deze brief is onder meer het volgende vermeld: “1 Introduction and objectives 1.1 We and taxpayer appreciate the view of the Dutch tax authorities as presented during the meeting on November 25, 2011. We have, however, concluded that the Dutch tax authorities’ view merely relates to certain specific variables and assumptions applied in the valuation analyses of taxpayer’s operations subject to reorganization (‘the valuations’), which valuations were prepared by taxpayer as part of and specifically for the purpose of the application for a ruling regarding the transfer pricing aspects of the reorganization.

1.2.

We have also concluded that, until now, fulfilling detailed information requests and having technical discussions in relation to the valuations has not yet resulted in any form of confirmation from the Dutch tax authorities on the arm’s-length nature of the transfer pricing policies applied post-reorganization, as well as the transfer pricing aspects of the reorganization as such. (…) 1.5 Therefore, in preparation for our next meeting and to further substantiate the position that was taken by taxpayer in the 2009/2010 corporate income tax return, the purpose of this letter is to provide you with further insight into the business rationale for the reorganization and the challenges which the group, [bedrijf 4] BV and [bedrijf 3] BV respectively were facing and expecting at the time of the reorganization. (…).

1.8 In this respect, for the record, we note that the valuations have been shared with you as part of and with a view to reaching a possible compromise (without prejudice). All elements of the calculations should therefore be considered as part of a total and coherent package. Taxpayer preserves the right to further comment on and / or revisit specific elements, variables and assumptions applied in the valuations, taking into account the most relevant and accurate information available regarding the reorganization.

1.9 The structure of the remaining sections of this letter is as follows: (…)

No other assets transferred 3.2 As per the filed tax return, apart from the specific assets noted above, no other (intangible) assets with value were either directly or implicitly transferred by [bedrijf 4] BV and [bedrijf 3] BV to [bedrijf 6] as part of the business reorganization.”

Gain realized 3.3.

The 2009/2010 corporate income tax return of taxpayer includes a total net gain of EUR 4,283,509 for [bedrijf 4] BV and a total net loss of EUR 2,452,472 for [bedrijf 3] BV resulting from the sale of assets which took place as part of above-mentioned reorganization of the business operations of the two companies on 1 July 2009.”

2.19.

Nadien hebben belanghebbende en de inspecteur tijdens verschillende vervolgbesprekingen gepoogd alsnog overeenstemming te bereiken over de fiscale gevolgen van de reorganisatie. Deze besprekingen hebben niet tot nadere overeenstemming geleid. Vervolgens heeft de inspecteur aan belanghebbende de onder 1.1 vermelde aanslag opgelegd.

2.20.

De inspecteur heeft tijdens de procedure in eerste aanleg een ‘Waarderingsmemo inzake [belanghebbende]’ overgelegd, dat met dagtekening 13 maart 2017 is opgesteld door [naam 7] (als ‘business valuator’ werkzaam bij het Landelijk Business Valuation Team (LBVT) van de Belastingdienst). In dit memo is – voor zover hier van belang – het volgende aangevoerd: “3 De waardering door het Landelijk Business Valuation Team 3.1.

Inleiding (…) Voor de door [bedrijf 3] en [bedrijf 4] gedreven ondernemingen dient de waarde te worden bepaald naar de situatie vóór de reorganisatie (als fully fledged onderneming) en de situatie na de reorganisatie (als consignment manufacturer). Uitgangspunt voor de waardering is de brief van 19 november 2009 van [adviseur] (…). (…) In een brief van 13 juli 2012. heeft [adviseur] expliciet vermeld dat de verstrekte berekeningen door [bedrijf 1] zelf zijn opgesteld voor het aanvragen van een ruling betreffende de transfer pricing aspecten van de reorganisatie.

3.2 Waardering ten behoeve van de aanslagregeling De meest gebruikelijke methode voor het waarderen van ondernemingen is de DCF (discounted cash flow) methode. De DCF methode gaat uit van de verwachte toekomstige cash flows (geldstromen). Deze worden contant gemaakt naar het waarderingsmoment met een disconteringsvoet. De hoogte van de disconteringsvoet wordt bepaald door het risicoprofiel van de te waarderen onderneming. (…) Het LBVT heeft de eigen berekening van [bedrijf 1] als uitgangspunt gebruikt, maar heeft bij die berekening wel de nodige kanttekeningen geplaatst.

Prognoseperiode [bedrijf 1] heeft voor [bedrijf 3] en [bedrijf 4] voor een periode van 5 jaar prognoses opgesteld van de verwachte toekomstige cash flows indien sprake zou zijn van een fully fledged onderneming en indien sprake zou zijn van een consignment manufacturer.

Voor [bedrijf 3] loopt de verwachte cash flow vóór belasting geleidelijk op van € 14.684.250 in het eerste jaar tot € 34.605.882 in het vijfde jaar als fully fledged onderneming en van € 6.895.431 in het eerste jaar tot € 7.175.413 in het vijfde jaar als consignment manufacturer.

Voor [bedrijf 4] loopt de verwachte cash flow vóór belasting geleidelijk op van € 16.886.397 in het eerste jaar tot € 25.582.892 in het vijfde jaar als fully fledged onderneming en van € 8.254.532 in het eerste jaar tot € 8.589.699 in het vijfde jaar als consignment manufacturer.

Bij de waardering heeft het LBVT de door [bedrijf 1] opgestelde prognoses gevolgd.

Restperiode [bedrijf 1] heeft voor [bedrijf 3] en [bedrijf 4] de verwachte toekomstige cash flows vóór belasting in de restperiode (jaar 6 en volgende jaren) bepaald als het gemiddelde van de cash flows in de prognoseperiode (jaar 1 tot en met 5) en is er van uit gegaan dat deze cash flows vervolgens met 1% per jaar zullen stijgen, overeenkomstig de verwachte inflatie.