Further on: ”Kamprad / Interogo / beneficial ownership”

WebJournal on International Taxation (WITS) no 7/2012 (September 2012)

The following contains the further correspondence that has taken place between Mr Anders Bylund of the IKEA Group and myself regarding the above matters. See also WITS no 2 and 6/2012.

Email from Anders Bylund 19 September 2012 

Hej Peter,

Thanks for your mail. Unfortunately, I can see that you continue to make incorrect assumptions and to draw incorrect conclusions. To put an end to our discussion I would like to give three examples;

Firstly; your incorrect interpretations of Hans' quote regarding longevity and stability. I was in the room when the interview took place, and have also discussed with Hans. Hans' quote intended to answer on the overall ownership structure with Interogo Foundation as the ultimate owner of Inter IKEA Group, and that is the correct context of his answer.

Secondly; registered ownership is a legal term. Register ownership of intellectual property rights can be based on a licence or on full ownership.

Thirdly; Inter IKEA Systems B.V. was the beneficial owner of the franchise fee income, also before the trademark transaction.

Kind regards
Anders Bylund
Inter IKEA Group

 

My email to Mr Bylund 21 September

Hej Anders,

Thanks for your mail. Regarding my incorrect assumptions, incorrect conclusions and incorrect interpretations I have the followong comments:

Firstly, my reference to Hans' statement regarding the IKEA trademarks was not an interpretation thereof but a direct quote as reported in Dagens Industri. If facts and circumstances to which you now testify as a witness to the interview should suggest otherwise this would ultimately be something to be sorted out with the relevant tax authorities. Also to be sorted out in such a context is how 100 billion SEK has wound up (taxfree) in Interogo.

Secondly, under continental law systems in general, (and in contrast to some common law jurisdictions), ownership rights, under the principles of numerus clausus, are indivisible. Moreover, as Inter IKEA Systems B.V. has aquired Interogos trademarks as of 1 January 2012, why then, which must be concluded from your reasoning, has Inter IKEA Sytems B.V. paid 75 billion SEK for something it already owns?

Thirdly, a license, if you say so, may permit a registration of ownership under trademark law but that does not necessarily represent beneficial ownership as defined under tax treaty law. As I have declared earlier beneficial ownership is a complex matter, which in this case I would humbly leave to be determined by the tax Court. Maybe, too, such a Court should consider whether the franchise (royalty) fees paid by all IKEA stores ( alledgedly 3 percent of gross earnings) to Inter IKEA are in accordance with arm's length principles for tax purposes.

End of discussion.

Kind regards
Peter Sundgren
WebJoural on International Taxation in Sweden (WITS)