JTI Acquisitions Company Ltd was a UK holding company, part of a US group, used as an acquisition vehicle to acquire another US group. The acquisition was partly financed by intercompany borrowings at an arm’s length interest rate. The tax authorities disallowed the interest expense on the basis that the loan was taken out for a unallowable purpose. Judgement of the Upper Tribunal The Court upheld the decision and dismissed JTI Acquisitions Company Ltd’s appeal. According to the Court, a main purpose of the arrangement was to secure a tax advantage for the UK members of the group. The fact that the loans were at arm’s length was relevant but not determinative. UK vs JTI ACQUISITIONS COMPANY (2011) LIMITED ... Continue to full case

Following an audit of Otis Servizi s.r.l. for FY 2007, 2008 and 2009 an assessment of additional taxable income was issued by the Italian tax authorities. The first part of the assessment related to interest received by OTIS in relation to the contract called “Cash management service for Group Treasury” (hereinafter “Cash Pooling Contract”) signed on 20 March 2001 between OTIS and the company United Technologies Intercompany Lending Ireland Limited (hereinafter “UTILI”) based in Ireland (hereinafter “Cash Pooling Relief”). In particular, the tax authorities reclassified the Cash Pooling Agreement as a financing contract and recalculated the rate of the interest income received by OTIS to be between 5.1 and 6.5 per cent (instead of the rate applied by the Company, which ranged between 3.5 and 4.8 per cent); The second part of the assessment related to of the royalty paid by OTIS to the American ... Continue to full case

“Lux Credit B.V.” took out various credit facilities from related parties [company name 2] s.a.r.l. and [company name 3] s.a.r.l. – both resident in Luxembourg. These were financings whereby “Lux Credit facility B.V.” could draw funds (facilities) up to a pre-agreed maximum amount. In doing so, “Lux Credit B.V.” owed both interest and “commitment fees”. The commitment fees were calculated on the maximum amount of the facility. Interest and commitment fees were owed. The interest payable to [company name 2] and [company name 3], respectively, was calculated by deducting the commitment fees from the interest payable on the amount withdrawn, with interest payable on the amount withdrawn, the commitment fees owed after the due date and the interest owed after the due date. In its returns for the current financial years, “Lux Credit B.V.” charged both interest and commitment fees against taxable profit. Following an ... Continue to full case

Mylan Australia Holding is a subsidiary of the multinational Mylan Group, which is active in the pharmaceutical industry. Mylan Australia Holding is the head of the Australian tax consolidated group, which includes its subsidiary Mylan Australia Pty. In 2007, Mylan Australia Pty acquired the shares of Alphapharm Pty Ltd. and to finance the acquisition, a substantial loan (A$923,205,336) was provided by a group company in Luxembourg. In the following years interest expenses was deducted from the taxable income of Mylan’s Australian tax group. The tax authorities issued a notice of assessment for the years 2009 to 2020 disallowing the deduction of excessive interest expense incurred as a result of the financing arrangement. Initially the tax authorities relied on both transfer pricing provisions and the general anti-avoidance provision (Pt IVA), but subsequently they relied only on the latter as the basis for the assessment. Mylan Australia ... Continue to full case

After the case was remanded by the Supreme Court in 2022, the Court of Appeal classified a Luxembourg company’s shareholder loan to “X Shareholder Loan B.V.” of €57,237,500 as an ‘imprudent loan’, with the result that the interest due on that loan was only tax deductible to a limited extent. The remaining interest was non-deductible because of fraus legis (evasion of the law). Allowing the interest due on the shareholder loan to be deductible would result in an evasion of tax, contrary to the purpose and purport of the 1969 Corporation Tax Act as a whole. The purpose and purport of this Act oppose the avoidance of the levying of corporate income tax, by bringing together, on the one hand, the profits of a company and, on the other hand, artificially created interest charges (profit drainage), in an arbitrary and continuous manner by employing – ... Continue to full case

“A…, Sociedade Unipessoal LDA” had taken out two intra group loans with the purpose of acquiring 70% of the shares in a holding company within the group. The tax authorities disallowed the resulting interest expenses claiming that the loan transactions lacked a business purpose. The assessment was later upheld by the tax court in decision no. 827/2019-T. An appeal was then filed by “A…, Sociedade Unipessoal LDA” with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgement of Supreme Administrative Court The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the tax court and the assessment issued by the tax authorities. Experts “35. In general, a transaction is considered to have economic substance when it significantly alters the taxpayer’s economic situation beyond the tax advantage it may generate. Now, the analysis of the relevant facts leads to the conclusion that neither A… nor the financial position of the ... Continue to full case

On 17 April 2015, “Loan Ltd” entered into a bond loan agreement with related parties. The effective interest rate charged to “Loan Ltd” (borrowing costs) in the years under consideration (2016 and 2017) was 8.1%. The interest rate had been determined based on the CUP method and external comparable data. The tax authorities determined the arm’s length interest rate for the loan to be 4,03% and issued an assessment of the additional taxable income resulting from the lower borrowing costs. A complaint was filed by “Loan Ltd” Decision of the Board The Board dismissed the complaint and upheld the assessment of the tax authorities. Excerpt “Because the applicant claims that the audit used inappropriate/non comparable data. Because, however, the audit chose the most reliable internal data in accordance with the OECD Guidelines, namely the interest rate agreed with a third independent bank for the provision ... Continue to full case

SGL CARBON SPA paid interest on loans received from the German parent of the SGL Group. The tax authorities considered, that the interest rate applied to the intra-group loan was significantly higher than the average interest rate applied in the German market. The interest rate was therefore determined based on external CUPs SGL disagreed with the resulting assessment and brought the case before the Italien Courts. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court ruled in favor of SGL. “The first plea is well founded. The Provincial Tax Commission, in fact, in its judgment at first instance held that the notice of assessment which is the subject of the present dispute was unlawful, on the basis of two distinct rationes decidendi. In particular, the Provincial Tax Commission pointed out, first of all, the erroneousness of the criterion (so-called external comparison) employed by the Revenue Agency ... Continue to full case

In 2003, Watsons Personal Care Stores Holding Limited borrowed USD 36,842,335.00 from Watson Labuan in order to acquire a substantial number of shares in Watson Malaysia and in 2012, the Company borrowed another USD 1,276,000.00 from Watson Labuan to finance the acquisition of shares. According to the loan agreement the annual interest rate was 3% plus the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and the principal amount was to be paid on demand by Watson Labuan. In 2013 the tax authorities (DGIR) requested information from Watsons Personal Care Stores Holding Limited relating to cross border transactions for transfer pricing risk assessment purposes and following an audit for FY 2010-2012 the tax authorities informed the Company that the interest would be adjusted under section 140A of the ITA (Malaysian arm’s length provision). Furthermore, the interest expenses paid would not be allowed as a deduction because the transaction ... Continue to full case

“Korean Clothing Corp” had two overseas subsidiaries – a fabric dyeing entity (AAA) and a sweater manufacturing entity (BBB). Following an tax audit for FY 2016~2020, the tax authorities issued an assessment of additional tax as a result of non arm’s length transactions. According to the tax authorities “Korean Clothing Corp” had not collected accounts receivables from related parties AAA and BBB, which had passed the typical payment terms. An arm’s length interest on the outstanding amount had therefor been calculated based on the weighted average interest rates in comparable transactions between independent parties. “Korean Clothing Corp” had also provided a financial guarantee to AAA related to a bank loan in 2014, which later resulted in “Korean Clothing Corp” paying back the loan to the bank in FY2018 and FY2019. “Korean Clothing Corp” accounted for the payment as a loss from the discontinued business in ... Continue to full case

“Fertilizer B.V.” is part of a Norwegian group that produces, sells and distributes fertiliser (products). “Fertilizer B.V.” is the parent company of a several subsidiaries, including the intermediate holding company [C] BV and the production company [D] BV. The case before the Dutch Supreme Court involves two points of dispute: (i) is a factually highly effective hedge sufficient for mandatory connected valuation of USD receivables and payables? (ii) is the transfer prices according to the supply and distribution agreements between [D] and a Swiss group company (AG) at arm’s length? (i) Factual hedge of receivables and payables “Fertilizer B.V.” had receivables, forward foreign exchange contracts and liabilities in USD at the end of 2012 and 2013. It values those receivables and payables at acquisition price or lower value in use. It recognised currency gains as soon as they were realised and currency losses as soon ... Continue to full case

SAS Blue Solutions manufactures electric batteries and accumulators for electric and hybrid vehicles and car-sharing systems. In FY 2012-2014 it granted a related party – Blue Solutions Canada – non-interest-bearing current account advances of EUR 42.9 million, EUR 43 million, and EUR 39 million. The French tax authorities considered that the failure to charge the interest on these advances was an indirect transfer of profit subject to withholding taxes and reintegrated the interest into the taxable income of Blue Solutions in France. Not satisfied with the resulting assessment an appeal was filed where SAS Blue Solutions. The company argued that the loans was granted interest free due to industrial and technological dependence on its Canadian subsidiary and that the distribution of profits was not hidden. Finally it argued that the treatment of the transactions in question was contrary to the freedom of movement of capital ... Continue to full case

“A Corporation” had granted various loans, firstly to a French subsidiary and secondly to the Liechtenstein sister company, B Corporation. The latter essentially passed on these loans to its German subsidiary C GmbH. A Corporation and B Corporation are each wholly owned by Mr D, who is resident in Liechtenstein. B Corporation has a 94% shareholding in C GmbH and D has a 6% shareholding. The loans granted by A Corporation did not bear interest The tax authorities issued an assessment for FY 2013 – 2017 where interest income from these loans had been added to the taxable income of A Corporation in accordance with the safe harbour rates applicable in Liechtenstein. Furthermore, the tax authorities had not fully allowed the equity capital interest deduction claimed by A Corporation in its tax returns An appeal was filed by A Corporation with the Administrative Court. Judgement ... Continue to full case

In 1996 K&D Logging Ltd advanced funds to an affiliated company, Interan. In the Loan Agreement the rate of interest was left blank and there were no other agreement or correspondence between the related parties that addresses if or when interest was payable. In the following years K&D in its tax return reported income with respect to the loan in its income tax returns using the interest rates prescribed in the income tax regulations. The calculated interest income was reported as interest receivables. In 2005 and 2006 the total amount booked as interest receivables was written off as bad debt. In 2006 Interan recieved a partial payment of 1.350.561 of the 1.628.173 outstanding balance of the loan. The tax authorities issued an assessment for 2005 and 2006 where deduction of the interest receivables losses had been denied because there were no interest rate indicated in ... Continue to full case

Innodis granted loans to five wholly-owned subsidiaries between 2002 and 2004. The loans were unsecured, interest-free and had a grace period of one year. The subsidiaries to which the loans were granted were either start-up companies with no assets or companies in financial difficulties. The tax authorities (MRA) had carried out an assessment of the tax liability of Innodis Ltd in respect of the assessment years 2002 – 2003 and 2003 – 2004. In the course of the exercise, a number of items were added to the taxable income, including income from interest-free loans to subsidiaries and overseas passage allowances to eligible employees, which had been earmarked but not paid. The tax authorities were of the opinion that the grant of the interest-free loans was not on arm’s length terms in accordance with section 75 of the Income Tax Act 1995 (ITA) and was clearly ... 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

In 2013, Viva Telecom Bulgaria EAD, as borrower/debtor, entered into a convertible loan agreement with its parent company in Luxembourg, InterV Investment S.a.r.l.. According to the agreement, the loan was non-interest bearing and would eventually be converted into equity. The tax authorities considered the arrangement to be a loan and applied an arm’s length interest rate and applied withholding tax to the amount of interest expense calculated. Vivacom appealed to the Administrative Court, which, in a judgment issued in 2019, agreed with the tax authorities’ argument for determining the withholding tax liability. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Bulgarian Supreme Administrative Court requested a ruling from the CJEU, which was issued in case C-257/20. The CJEU ruled that the applicable EU directives do not prevent the application of withholding tax on notional interest. On this basis, the Bulgarian Supreme Administrative Court issued its decision ... Continue to full case

In 2011, Willink SAS issued two intercompany convertible bonds with a maturity of 10 years and an annual interest rate of 8%. The tax authorities found that the 8% interest rate had not been determined in accordance with the arm’s length principle. Willink appealed, but both the Administrative Court and later the Administrative Court of Appeal sided with the tax authorities. Judgment of the Supreme Court The Conseil d’Etat overturned the decision and ruled in favour of Willink SAS. The court found that RiskCalc could be used to determine a company’s credit rating for transfer pricing purposes in a sufficiently reliable manner, notwithstanding its shortcomings and the differences in the business sectors of the comparables. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation France Conseil d'État, 3ème chambre, 22_12_2022, 446669 ... Continue to full case

The tax authorities had issued a notice of assessment in which payments for a parent company guarantee had been adjusted on the basis of the arm’s length principle. The Administrative Court of Appeal annulled the assessment. The tax authorities filed an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgement of the Court The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal and dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities. According to the Court, I – The Tax Administration may, under the provisions of article 58 of the CIRC, make corrections to the taxable income whenever, by virtue of special relations between the taxpayer and another person, whether or not subject to IRC, different conditions have been established in certain operations from those that are generally agreed upon between independent persons and these particular conditions have led to the profit ascertained on the ... Continue to full case

In the course of the income tax audit conducted on Hanácká, the tax authorities found that interest expenses had been in its calculation of taxable income, corresponding to a rate of 8.5%. The tax authorities determined the arm’s length interest rate to be 2.46% and an adjustment was issued amounting to the difference between the interest deducted (8,5%) and the interest calculated (2,46%). The adjustment was later upheld in court where the court agreed with the tax authority’s conclusion – Hanácká had not discharged the burden of proof under Article 92(3) of the Tax Code by failing to prove, in response to a request for the removal of doubts, that the interest in the two tax periods in question, amounting to CZK 6 040 000, which represented the difference between the interest on the 8,5 % bonds subscribed by persons associated with the applicant within ... Continue to full case