DENSO Corporation received a notification from the Nagoya Regional Taxation Bureau on June 28, 2010 that DENSO’s subsidiary in Singapore was not subject to the exemptions to the anti-tax haven rules, and thus DENSO was required to amend the total of its reported taxable income for the two fiscal years ending in March 2008 and March 2009, to declare an unreported income of about 11.4 billion yen and pay about 1.2 billion yen in back taxes including local and other taxes. DENSO filed a lawsuit with the Nagoya District Court for annulment of this decision. On September 4, 2014, the district court ruled in favor of DENSO regarding its Singapore subsidiary subject to the exemptions to the anti-tax haven rules, but in favor of the Nagoya Regional Taxation Bureau as to part of its reassessment of the amount of DENSO’s taxable income. Dissatisfied with this, however, both the defendant and DENSO appealed to the Nagoya High Court. DENSO today announces that it has received the high court’s decision.
1. Chronological developments of the case
- August 8, 2011
- DENSO filed a lawsuit with the Nagoya District Court against the Nagoya Regional Taxation Bureau
- September 4, 2014
- The Nagoya District Court decided on the lawsuit filed by DENSO
- September 17, 2014
- DENSO appealed to the Nagoya High Court
- September 18, 2014
- The defendant appealed to the Nagoya High Court
- February 10, 2016
- The Nagoya High Court decided on appeal made by DENSO
2. Decision by the Nagoya High Court
Regarding the question of whether DENSO’s Singapore subsidiary is subject to the exemptions of the anti-tax haven rules, the Nagoya High Court ruled in favor of the defendant, rejecting DENSO’s assertions. As the defendant’s appeal was successful, DENSO’s appeal was dismissed.
3. Prospects and expectations for the lawsuit
DENSO deeply regrets the fact that its assertions have been rejected, and is unable to accept the ruling. DENSO will consider trying to appeal to the Supreme Court (filing a final appeal and/or petitioning for acceptance of a final appeal) after closely examining the high court’s decision to reject DENSO’s demand for the withdrawal of the recognition of the amount of taxable income as being not reported by DENSO.
