In 2009 and 2010 Global Nory, S.L. distributed a dividend of 7,000,000 euros to its parent company resident in Luxembourg, without declaring withholding taxes, as it considered that the dividend was exempt. In 2013, Global Nory, S.L. was notified of the commencement of general inspection proceedings, referring, among other items, to the dividend payments, and in 2014 the final assessment was issued, resulting in additional withholding taxes of 700,000 euros and 138,753.43 euros to late payment interest. The assessment was based on the following facts: The only relevant asset of Global Noray SL is a 5% stake in the listed company Corporación Logística de Hidrocarburos. This shareholding was acquired for a sum of 176,500,000 euros. Global Noray, S.L.’s income consists mainly of dividends received on these shares. Global Noray, S.L., is wholly owned by PSP Eur SARL, which in turn is wholly owned by PSP ... Continue to full case

The cases concerned in particular whether Takeda A/S under voluntary liquidation and NTC Parent S.à.r.l. were obliged to withhold tax on interest on intra-group loans granted by foreign group companies. The cases were to be assessed under Danish tax law, the EU Interest/Royalty Directive and double taxation treaties with the Nordic countries and Luxembourg. In a judgment of 9 January 2023, concerning dividends distributed to foreign parent companies, the Supreme Court has ruled on when a foreign parent company is a “beneficial owner” under double taxation treaties with, inter alia, Luxembourg, and when there is abuse of rights under the EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive. In the present cases on the taxation of interest, the Supreme Court referred to the judgement of January 2023 on the general issues and then made a specific assessment of the structure and loan relationships of the two groups. The Supreme Court ... Continue to full case

YOLT Services s.r.o. is active in distribution of TV programmes and paid royalties/license for use of these programmes to its parent company in Romania and subsidiaries in Hungary and Slovakia. These companies were contractually obliged to pay royalties received on to the producers of the programmes. According to the tax authorites, the beneficial owners of the royalties were not the group companies, but rather the producers of the programmes. On that basis the royalty payments were not excempt from withholding taxes. An assessment of additional taxes was issued where withholding taxes had been calculated as 15% of the royalties paid by YOLT services. Judgement of the Regional Court The court upheld the decision of the tax authorities in regards of the producers – and not the group companies – beeing the beneficial owners of the royalties. But the court referred the case back to the ... Continue to full case

A parent company resident in country Y1 was liable to tax on interest and dividends it had received from its Danish subsidiary. There should be no reduction of or exemption from withholding tax under the Parent-Subsidiary Directive or the Interest and Royalties Directive or under the double taxation treaty between Denmark and country Y1, as neither the parent company nor this company’s own Y1-resident parent company could be considered the rightful owner of the dividends and interest within the meaning of the directives and the treaty, and as there was abuse. The High Court thus found that the Y1-domestic companies were flow-through companies for the interest and dividends, which were passed on to underlying companies in the tax havens Y2-ø and Y3-ø. The High Court found that there was no conclusive evidence that the companies in Y2 were also flow-through entities and that the beneficial ... Continue to full case

I. sp. z o.o. is a Polish tax resident. Its sole shareholder is an Italian tax resident company. The Company plans to pay a dividend to the shareholder in the future, and therefore asked the following question to the Polish Tax Chamber: in order to exercise the right to exempt a dividend paid to a shareholder from corporate income tax (withholding tax) under Article 22(4) of the Corporate Income Tax Act of 15 February 1992 (Journal of Laws of 2019, item 865, hereinafter the CIT), is the Company required to verify whether the entity to which the dividend is paid is the actual owner of the dividend? The Tax Chamber answered that verification of the beneficial ownership is part of the due diligence obligation introduced in Article 26(1) of the Corporate Income Tax Act in 2019. The company challenged this interpretation before the Administrative Court ... Continue to full case

RRE and EBL Italia, belonged to the Belgian group ELECTRABEL SA (which later became the French group GDF Suez, now the Engie group); RRE, like the other Italian operating companies, benefited from a financing line from the Luxembourg subsidiary ELECTRABEL INVEST LUXEMBOURG SA (“EIL”). In the course of 2006, as part of a financial restructuring project of the entire group, EBL Italia acquired all the participations in the Italian operating companies, assuming the role of sub-holding company, and EIL acquired 45 per cent of the share capital of EBL Italia. At a later date, EBL Italia and EIL signed an agreement whereby EIL assigned to EBL Italia the rights and obligations deriving from the financing contracts entered into with the operating companies; at the same time, in order to proceed with the acquisition of EIL’s receivables from the operating companies, the two companies concluded a ... Continue to full case

The issue in the Danish beneficial ownership cases of NetApp Denmark ApS and TDC A/S was whether the companies were obliged to withhold dividend tax on distributions to foreign parent companies. The first case – NetApp Denmark ApS – concerned two dividend distributions of approximately DKK 566 million and DKK 92 million made in 2005 and 2006 to an intermediate parent company in Cyprus – and then on to NETAPP Bermuda. The second case – TDC A/S – concerned the distribution of dividends of approximately DKK 1.05 billion in 2011 to an intermediate parent company in Luxembourg – and then on to owner companies in the Cayman Islands. In both cases, the tax authorities took the view that the intermediate parent companies were so-called “flow-through companies” which were not the real recipients of the dividends, and that the real recipients (beneficial owners) were resident in ... Continue to full case

This case concerns the application of the beneficial ownership rule to dividends paid by a French corporation to its Luxembourg parent. The Luxembourg parent company was not considered to be the beneficial owner of the dividends because it did not carry out any activity other than the receipt and further distribution of dividends, and it distributed the full amount of the dividend to its Luxembourg parent one day after receipt; all entities in the chain of ownership were wholly owned; and the two Luxembourg entities had common directors. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation CAA de PARIS 2ème chambre, 07-12-2022 No 21PA05986 ... Continue to full case

In view of its purpose and the comments made on Article 12 of the OECD Model Convention, the Conseil d’État found that Article 12(2) of the Franco-New Zealand tax treaty was applicable to French source royalties whose beneficial owner resided in New Zealand, even if the royalties had been paid to an intermediary company established in a third country. The Supreme Court thus set aside the previous 2020 Judgement of the Administrative Court of Appeal. The question of whether the company in New Zealand actually qualified as the beneficial owner of the royalties for the years in question was referred to the Court of Appeal. Excerpt “1. It is clear from the documents in the file submitted to the judges of the court of first instance that the company Planet, which carries on the business of distributing sports programmes to fitness clubs, was subject to ... Continue to full case

“Dividend B.V.” is the legal successor of a BV that has made (dividend) distributions. With respect to the distributions to a Luxembourg company (LuxCo), no Dutch dividend tax was withheld on the basis of the withholding tax exemption. Prior to the first distribution, the relevant shares in the BV were held by a limited partnership established in the Cayman Islands. This limited partnership transferred the shares in the BV to LuxCo in view of the first distribution. In the light of the T-Danmark judgment, the Court found that the tax authorities had proved that there had been an abuse of EU law, on the basis that without the use of LuxCo, a 15% withholding tax would have been due in the Netherlands, and after the use of LuxCo, this was not the case – based only on the formal conditions. The use of letter shares ... Continue to full case

Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS, a subsidiary in the Heerema group, paid dividends to a parent company in Luxembourg which in turn paid the dividends to two group companies in Panama. The tax authorities found that the company in Luxembourg was not the beneficial owner of the dividends and thus the dividends were not covered by the tax exemption rules of the EU Parent/Subsidiary Directive or the Double Taxation Convention between Denmark and Luxembourg. On that basis an assessment was issued regarding payment of withholding tax on the dividends. An appeal was filed by Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS with the High Court. Judgement of the Eastern High Court The court dismissed the appeal of Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS and decided in favor of the tax authorities. The parent company in Luxembourg was a so-called “flow-through” company which was not the beneficial owner of ... Continue to full case

By judgment of 22 May 2020, the Administrative Court set aside a tax assessment in which CBS International Netherlands B.V. had been denied reimbursement of withholding tax in the amount of BGN 156 830,27 related to royalties and license payments. An appeal was filed by the tax authorities with the Supreme Administrative Court. In the appeal the tax authorities held that the beneficial owner of the licence and royalty payments was not CBS International Netherlands B.V. but instead CBS CORPORATION, a company incorporated and domiciled in New York, USA. According to the tax authorities the main function of CBS International Netherlands B.V. was that of an intermediary between the end customers and the beneficial owner. This was further supported by the transfer pricing documentation, according to which the US company that bears the risk of the development activity, the market risk is borne equally by ... Continue to full case

In 2011 Samsung signed the contract with Microsoft for use of software-patent in Android-based smartphone and tablets, and for the years 2012-2015 Samsung paid royalties to a Microsoft subsidiary, MS Licensing GP, while saving 15 percent for withholding tax. The royalties paid by Samsung to Microsoft during these years amounted to 4.35 trillion won, of which 15%, or 653.7 billion won, was paid as withholding tax. In June 2016, Microsoft filed a claim for a tax refund in a amount of 634 billion won with the Tax Office. According to Microsoft royalty paid for patent rights not registered in Korea is not domestic source income, and should not be subject to withholding tax. The request was refused by the tax authorities. Microsoft then filed a lawsuit against the tax authorities in 2017. Microsoft argued that the withholding tax imposed on income from a patent unregistered ... Continue to full case

Ikea France (SNC MIF) had concluded a franchise agreement with Inter Ikea Systems BV (IIS BV) in the Netherlands by virtue of which it benefited, in particular, as a franchisee, from the right to operate the ‘Ikea Retail System’ (the Ikea concept), the ‘Ikea Food System’ (food sales) and the ‘Ikea Proprietary Rights’ (the Ikea trade mark) in its shops. In return, Ikea France paid Inter Ikea Systems BV a franchise fee equal to 3% of the amount of net sales made in France, which amounted to EUR 68,276,633 and EUR 72,415,329 for FY 2010 and 2011. These royalties were subject to the withholding tax provided for in the provisions of Article 182 B of the French General Tax Code, but under the terms of Article 12 of the Convention between France and the Netherlands: “1. Royalties arising in one of the States and paid ... Continue to full case

Since Arnoldo Mondadori Editore SpA’s articles of association prevented it from issuing bonds, financing of the company had instead been archived via an arrangement with its subsidiary in Luxembourg, Mondadori International S.A. To that end, the subsidiary issued a bond in the amount of EUR 350 million, which was subscribed for by US investors. The funds raised were transferred to Arnoldo Mondadori Editore SpA via an interest-bearing loan. The terms of the loan – duration, interest rate and amount – were the same as those of the bond issued by Mondadori International S.A. to the US investors. The Italian tax authority denied the withholding tax exemption in regards of the interest paid on the loan. According to the tax authorities Mondadori International S.A. had received no benefit from the transaction. The interest paid by Arnoldo Mondadori Editore SpA was immediately and fully transferred to the ... Continue to full case

In 2016 the British company Avon Cosmetics Limited (ACL) became the sole licensor of intellectual property rights for Europe, Africa and the Middle East within the Avon Cosmetics Group and was authorised to issue sub-licences to other group companies, including the Czech subsidiary, Avon Cosmetics spol. s r.o.. ACL charged a fee for issuing a sub-licence equal to an agreed-upon percentage of net sales but was then contractually obliged to pay a similar fee to the US companies, Avon Products Inc. and Avon Internetional Operations Inc. ACL applied for relief from WHT on the royalty payments from the Czech subsidiary. The tax authorities concluded that ACL was not the beneficial owner of the royalty income but only an conduit or intermediary. The legal conditions for granting the exemption were not met. ACL did not obtain any real benefit from the royalty fees and was not ... Continue to full case

ALTA Energy, a resident of Luxembourg, claimed an exemption from Canadian income tax under Article 13(5) of the Canada-Luxembourg Income Tax Treaty in respect of a large capital gain arising from the sale of shares of ALTA Canada, its wholly-owned Canadian subsidiary. At that time, Alta Canada carried on an unconventional shale oil business in the Duvernay shale oil formation situated in Northern Alberta. Alta Canada was granted the right to explore, drill and extract hydrocarbons from an area of the Duvernay formation designated under licenses granted by the government of Alberta. The Canadian tax authorities denied that the exemption applied and assessed ALTA Energy accordingly. Article 13(5) of the Canada-Luxembourg Tax Treaty is a distributive rule of last application. It applies only in the case where the capital gain is not otherwise taxable under paragraphs (1) to (4) of Article 13 of the Treaty ... Continue to full case

The issue in these two cases is whether withholding tax was payable on interest paid to foreign group companies considered “beneficial owners” via conduit companies covered by the EU Interest/Royalties Directive and DTA’s exempting the payments from withholding taxes. The first case concerned interest accruals totalling approximately DKK 1,476 million made by a Danish company in the period 2007-2009 in favour of its parent company in Sweden in connection with an intra-group loan. The Danish Tax Authorities (SKAT) subsequently ruled that the recipients of the interest were subject to the tax liability in Section 2(1)(d) of the Corporation Tax Act and that the Danish company was therefore obliged to withhold and pay withholding tax on a total of approximately DKK 369 million. The Danish company brought the case before the courts, claiming principally that it was not obliged to withhold the amount collected by SKAT, ... Continue to full case

On 3 May 2021, the Danish High Court ruled in two “beneficial owner” cases concerning the question of whether withholding tax must be paid on dividends distributed by Danish subsidiaries to foreign parent companies. The first case – NETAPP Denmark ApS – concerned two dividend distributions of approx. 566 million DKK and approx. 92 million made in 2005 and 2006 by a Danish company to its parent company in Cyprus. The National Tax Court had upheld the Danish company in that the dividends were exempt from withholding tax pursuant to the Corporation Tax Act, section 2, subsection. 1, letter c, so that the company was not obliged to pay withholding tax. The Ministry of Taxation brought the case before the courts, claiming that the Danish company should include – and thus pay – withholding tax of a total of approx. 184 million kr. The second ... Continue to full case

The shareholder of “BO zoo” is a German company. The German parent held 100% of the shares of “BO zoo” continuously for more than 2 years. The German parent’s ownership of the shares was based on title. “BO zoo” asked the Tax Chamber whether, in order to apply the exemption provided for in Article 22(4) of the CIT Act, it is obliged to verify whether the German parent meets the definition of a beneficial owner of dividends within the meaning of Article 4a(29a) of the CIT Act. “BO zoo” took the position that no provision of the CIT Act makes the application of the exemption from CIT under Article 22(4) of the CIT Act conditional on the company receiving the dividend being the beneficial owner of the dividend. The Tax Chamber disagreed, arguing that the verification of the beneficial owner is part of the due ... Continue to full case