Canada vs. General Electric Capital, November 2010, Federal Court, Case No 2010 FCA 344

Posted on | By Courts of Canada
Category: Financial Transactions | Tag: , , , , , , ,
« | »

In the case of General Electric Capital, Canada, the issue was if a 1% guarantee fee  paid by General Electric Capital Canada Inc. to its AAA-rated US parent company satisfied the arm’s length test.

The Canadian tax administration argued  that implicit support resulted in General Electric Canada having a AAA credit rating, so that the guarantee provided by the US parent had no value.

Taxpayer argued that the 1% guarantee fee did not exceed arm’s length pricing and that implicit support from the US parent should be ignored since it stemmed from the non-arm’s length relationship.

The Tax Court agreed with the tax administration that implicit support should be taken into account and applied a “yield approach,” comparing the interest rate the Canadian company would have paid with and without the guarantee. The Tax Court found that credit rating of the Canadian company – with implicit support but without the guarantee – was at most BBB-/BB+ and the 1% guarantee was arm’s length.

The Federal Court of Appeal approved of both the Tax Court’s yield approach and its conclusion that the guarantee fee did not exceed an arm’s length price. On the issue of implicit support the Court concluded that under the arm´s length principle implicit support had to be taken into account . Determining arm’s length pricing “involves taking into account all the circumstances which bear on the price whether they arise from the relationship or otherwise.” Hence, Circumstances that are themselves inherently non-arm’s length in nature must also be considered.

The relevant question is what an arm’s length guarantor would charge to provide a guarantee to a comparable subsidiary of a comparable AAA-rated US parent Company. Comparing prices of loans without regard to implicit support from the US parent, fails to recognize all of the relevant economic circumstances of the controlled transaction.

 

Canada-vs-General-Electric-2010-federal-Court-of-Appeal-FCA-344

 

 

Canada_2010fca290

Related Guidelines

TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.187The facts relating to S’s credit standing and borrowing power are identical to those in the preceding example. S borrows EUR 50 million from Bank A. The functional analysis suggests that Bank A would lend to S at an interest rate applicable to A rated borrowers without any formal guarantee....
TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.185Assume that the accurate delineation of the actual transaction shows that the effect of passive association raises Company D’s credit standing from BBB to A, and that the provision of the explicit guarantee additionally enhances the credit standing of Company D to AAA. Assume further that independent lenders charge an...
TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.175The next step would be to determine, by a similar process (unless directly observable in the case of a loan from a third party), the interest rate payable with the benefit of the explicit guarantee. The interest spread can be used in quantifying the benefit gained by the borrower as...
TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.164A borrower would not generally be prepared to pay for a guarantee if it did not expect to obtain an appropriate benefit in return. Even an explicit guarantee will not necessarily confer a benefit on the borrower; for example, banking covenants applicable to a parent or other MNE group member’s...
TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.159Where the effect of an intra-group guarantee as accurately delineated is to reduce the cost of debt-funding for the borrower, it might be prepared to pay for that guarantee, provided it was in no worse a position overall. In considering the borrower’s overall financial position as a result of the...
TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.148These cross-guarantees and set-off rights are a feature of an arrangement which would not occur between independent parties. Each guarantor is providing a guarantee for all members of the pool but will not have control over membership of the pool, has no control over the quantum of the debt which...
TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.177The result of this analysis sets a maximum fee for the guarantee (the maximum amount that the recipient of the guarantee will be willing to pay), namely, the difference between the interest rate with the guarantee and the interest rate without the guarantee but with the benefit of implicit support...
TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.161Where the effect of a guarantee is to permit a borrower to borrow a greater amount of debt than it could in the absence of the guarantee, the guarantee is not simply supporting the credit rating of the borrower but could be acting both to increase the borrowing capacity and...
TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.80The impact of an assessment of implicit support is a matter of judgement. The kind of information on which the MNE group would base a decision of whether or not to provide support to a borrower in particular circumstances may not be available to a tax administration, as is frequently...
TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.165A similar issue arises in respect of cross-guarantees, where two or more entities in an MNE group guarantee each other’s obligations. From the lender’s perspective, it has access to the assets of every cross-guaranteeing entity in the event of a default by a guaranteed borrower. This potentially gives the lender...