Category: Shares and Dividends

Transactions involving transfers of shares, options and dividends.

Italy vs CDC srl, December 2018, Italian Supreme Court, Case No 32255/2018

Italy vs CDC srl, December 2018, Italian Supreme Court, Case No 32255/2018

A refund of withholding tax on dividend payments from an Italien subsidiary, CDC srl, was claimed by the parent company in Luxembourg, CDC Net SA. The parent company had been subject to income tax in Luxembourg as required by the EU Directive, but in Luxembourg there were no actual taxation of the dividends. The refund was denied as, according to the authorities, the Luxembourg company did not meet the requirements of the EU Directive due to lack of actual taxation of the dividends in Luxembourg. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the tax authorities and denied the refund of withholding taxes under the European Parent Subsidiary Directive (Directive 90/435/EEC, Article 5, paragraph 1, ) as no double taxation existed due to the dividend exemption regime in Luxembourg. Click here for translation Italy Dividend Supreme Court 2018 Share: ... Continue to full case
UK vs  Union Castle Ltd, October 2018, UK Upper Tribunal, Case No  0316 (TCC)

UK vs Union Castle Ltd, October 2018, UK Upper Tribunal, Case No 0316 (TCC)

Union Castle Ltd. calimed a tax deduction of £ 39 million related to losses on derivative contracts. After acquiring derivative contracts, Union Castle issued bonus A shares to it’s parent company, Caledonia, which carried a dividend equal to 95% of the cash-flows arising on the close-out of the contracts. Therefore Union Castle had written off 39 million of the value of the contracts in it’s accounts. The tax authorities disagreed that a tax loss had been suffered and issued an assesment disallowing the loss. The Tribunal found in favor of the tax authorities. Capital transactions are subject of the UK transfer pricing rules. Issuing of shares meets the requirements of “making or imposing conditions in commercial and financial relations” as required by Article 9 of the OECD Model Convention. OECD TPG apply to debt financing. Share transactions, which have an effect on income taxation, must ... Continue to full case
India vs. Vodafone India Services Pvt Ltd, Jan 2018, ITA No.565 Ahd 2017

India vs. Vodafone India Services Pvt Ltd, Jan 2018, ITA No.565 Ahd 2017

The 2018 Vodafone case from India – whether termination of option rights under an agreement can be treated as a “deemed international transaction” under section 92B(2) of the Income Tax Act. Vodafone India Services had a call option to buy shares in SMMS Investment Pvt Ltd — which held 5.11% equity capital of the Vodafone India through a web of holdings for 2.78 crore if the fair market value of these shares was less than 1,500 crore. If the fair market value was higher, it had to pay a little more. Under the same agreement, if Vodafone India Services terminated its right to acquire the share, the company would have to pay Rs 21.25 crore. Instead of exercising the call option and acquiring the valuable shares at a very low price, Vodafone India Service terminated the option and paid 21.25 crore. The tax administration held ... Continue to full case
Norway vs. A AS, October 2017, Tax Tribunal, NS 71/2017

Norway vs. A AS, October 2017, Tax Tribunal, NS 71/2017

A Norwegian company, A, first acquired shares in Company C from a unrelated party D for tNKR 625. Company A then transferred the acquired shares in C to a subsidiary E, a shell company established by C for the purpose of the transaction. Company A then sold the shares in subsidiary E to the unrelated party D, from which it had originally bought the shares in C, for tNKR 3830, a price almost six times higher than the acquisition price, in a tax free transfer. Based on these facts, the Norwegian tax administration adjusted the price of the intra-group transfer shares in C from A to E. The Norwegian tax tribunal decided that the valuation af the shares in the intra-group transfer could be based on a linear appreciation in the share value. Click here for translation Norway vs AS 27 november 2017 SKATTEKLAGENEMDA NS ... Continue to full case
UK vs. BNP PARIBAS, September 2017, FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL TAX CHAMBER, TC05941

UK vs. BNP PARIBAS, September 2017, FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL TAX CHAMBER, TC05941

The issues in this case was: Whether the price of purchase of right to dividends were deductible. Whether the purchase and sale of right to dividends was trading transaction in course of Appellant’s trade. Whether the purchase price expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for purposes of the trade. Whether HMRC were permitted to argue point in relation to section 730 ICTA that was not raised in closure notice and which they stated they were not pursuing Whether the price of sale of right to dividends should be disregarded for the purposes of calculating Appellant’s trading profits under section 730(3) ICTA BNP-vs-HMRC Share: ... Continue to full case
France vs. Havas, July 2017, CE, No 400644

France vs. Havas, July 2017, CE, No 400644

The French Court considers that in the event of a transfer of shares, the goodwill recognized at the acquisition of the shares shall no longer be included in the balance sheet of the parent company. Share: ... Continue to full case
Sweden vs S BV, 16 June 2017, Administrative Court, case number 2385-2390-16

Sweden vs S BV, 16 June 2017, Administrative Court, case number 2385-2390-16

S BV was not granted deductions in its Swedish PE for interest on debt relating to the acquisition of subsidiaries. The Court of Appeal considers that it is clear that key personnel regarding acquisition, financing and divestment of the shares in the subsidiary and the associated risks have not existed in the PE. It is also very likely that the holding of the shares has not been necessary for and conditioned by the PE’s operations. Therefore, there is no support for allocating the shares and the related debt to the PE. Click here for translation Sweden vs Corp 30 June 2017 KRNS, mål nr 2385—2390-16 Share: ... Continue to full case
UK vs. Ladbroke Group, February 2017, case nr. UT/2016/0012 & 0013

UK vs. Ladbroke Group, February 2017, case nr. UT/2016/0012 & 0013

Tax avoidance scheme. Use of total return swap over shares in subsidiary to create a deemed creditor relationship. Value of shares depressed by novating liability for large loans to subsidiary. The scheme used by Ladbroke UK involved a total return swap and a novation of loans to extract reserves. Used to achieve a “synthetic transfer” of the JBB business to LB&G. In essence, this involved extracting the surplus which had accumulated in LGI and transferring it to LB&G prior to an actual sale of the JBB business to LB&G. The normal way to extract such reserves would be by a dividend payment. The Court ruled, that it is sufficient for the application of paragraph 13 (UK GAAR) that the relevant person has an unallowable purpose. Where the unallowable purpose is to secure a tax advantage for another person, HMRC do not have to show that the other ... Continue to full case
US-vs-Analog-Devices-Subsidiaries-Nov-22-2016-United-State-Tax-Court-147-TC-no-15

US-vs-Analog-Devices-Subsidiaries-Nov-22-2016-United-State-Tax-Court-147-TC-no-15

The US Tax Court held that a closing agreement did not result in retroactive indebtedness. Analog Devices Corp. repatriated cash dividends from a foreign subsidiary and claimed an 85% dividends received deduction for FY 2005, cf. US regs § 965. No related party indebtedness was reported by the company which would have limited the deduction available. During the audit of Analog Devises Corp. the IRS claimed that a 2 pct. royalty from the subsidiary should be increased to 6% for FY 2001-2005. This was accepted and Analog Devises Corp. entered into a closing agreement with the IRS. The US Tax Court held that the closing agreement concerning accounts receivable, cf. the increased royalty, was not related party indebtedness for the purposes of § 965. US vs Analog Devices & Subsidiaries, Nov 22 2016, United State Tax Court 147 TC no 15 Share: ... Continue to full case
Norway vs. IKEA Handel og Ejendom, October 2016, HRD 2016-722

Norway vs. IKEA Handel og Ejendom, October 2016, HRD 2016-722

In 2007, IKEA reorganised its property portfolio in Norway so that the properties were demerged from the Norwegian parent company and placed in new, separate companies. The shares in these companies were placed in a newly established property company, and the shares in this company were in turn sold to the original parent company, which then became an indirect owner of the same properties. The last acquisition was funded through an inter-company loan. Based on the non-statutory anti-avoidance rule in Norwegian Tax Law, the Supreme Court concluded that the parent company could not be allowed to deduct the interest on the inter-company loan, as the main purpose of the reorganisation was considered to be to save tax. The anti-avoidance rule in section 13-1 of the Tax Act did not apply in this circumstance. Click here for translation Norway vs IKEA-Handel-og-Ejendom-HRD-2016-722 Share: ... Continue to full case
Spain vs. PEUGEOT CITROEN AUTOMOVILES, May 2016, Supreme Court, case nr. 58/2015

Spain vs. PEUGEOT CITROEN AUTOMOVILES, May 2016, Supreme Court, case nr. 58/2015

The company had deducted impairment losses recognised on an investment in an Argentinean company (recently acquired from a related entity) arising from the conversion into capital of loans granted to the entity by other group companies, loans which had been acquired by the Spanish taxpayer. The tax administration argued that acquisition of such loans would not have taken place between independent parties due to the economic situation in Argentina at that time. The Supreme Court considered this conclusion to be wrong for two reasons: From a technical point of view, it was unacceptable to consider that the loans had no market value, since economic reality shows that even in situations of apparent insolvency there is an active market to purchase loans that are apparently uncollectible. If the loans acquired could have a market value, it was not possible to deny that they had such value without proving it; ... Continue to full case
Italy vs Edison s.p.a. April 2016, Supreme Court no 7493

Italy vs Edison s.p.a. April 2016, Supreme Court no 7493

The Italien company had qualified a funding arrangement as a non-interest-bearing contribution for future capital increase, hence part of Net Equity. The Italian Supreme Court found that intra-group financing agreements are subject to transfer pricing legislation and that non-interest-bearing financing is generally not consistent with the arm’s-length principle. Share: ... Continue to full case
Germany vs. Corp, October 2014, Supreme Tax Court judgment I R 31/13

Germany vs. Corp, October 2014, Supreme Tax Court judgment I R 31/13

The German Supreme Tax Court rejected the tax administrations recharacterisation of a repayment of share capital to a payment of dividend. A German company resolved a share capital reduction of €16 m in preparation for a capital repayment to avoid an IFRS consolidation requirement for its sole shareholder, a public utility. It took the reduction to capital reserve, waited as required by the German Company Act for one year after a public announcement to it’s creditors, reported the reduction to the German trade registry and repaid an amount of €4 m to the shareholder. This repayment was sufficient to reduce the assets below the level for the consolidation requirement. The tax administration recharacterised the payment to a “dividend distribution” subject to withholding tax under the German Corporate Tax Act provision to the effect that payments to shareholders are deemed to be made from retained earnings unless ... Continue to full case
Finland vs. Corp. February 2014, Supreme Administrative Court HFD 2014:33

Finland vs. Corp. February 2014, Supreme Administrative Court HFD 2014:33

A Ltd, which belonged to the Norwegian X Group, owned the entire share capital of B Ltd and had on 18.5.2004 sold it to a Norwegian company in the same group. The Norwegian company had the same day transferred the shares back on to A Ltd. C ASA had also been transferred shares in other companies belonging to the X group. C ASA was listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange in June 2004. Following the transaction with the subsidiary the Tax Office had raised A Ltd’s income for 2004 with 62,017,440 euros on the grounds that the price used in the transaction were considered below the shares’ market value. Further, a tax increase of EUR 620 000 had been applied. A Ltd stated that the purchase price for the shares of B Ltd had been determined on the basis of the company’s net present value, ... Continue to full case
Germany vs. US taxpayer. October 2013, Supreme Tax Court judgment IX R 25/12

Germany vs. US taxpayer. October 2013, Supreme Tax Court judgment IX R 25/12

The Supreme Tax Court has held that the costs incurred by a taxpayer in connection with a tax treaty mutual agreement proceeding are not costs of earning the relevant income, but has left open a possible deduction as “unusual expenses”. A US resident realised a gain on the sale of a share in a GmbH. The German tax office sought to tax the gain, but the taxpayer objected on the grounds that it was taxable in the US under the double tax treaty. This tax office did not accept this objection, so a mutual agreement proceeding was requested in an effort to clear the issue. Ultimately, the two governments agreed to split the taxing right in the ratio 60:40 in favour of Germany. However, the taxpayer had incurred various consultancy and legal costs in the course of the process and these should, he claimed, be deducted ... Continue to full case
Denmark vs H1 A/S, June 2013, Supreme Court, Case No SKM2013.699

Denmark vs H1 A/S, June 2013, Supreme Court, Case No SKM2013.699

In this case a taxable loss of a debitor following a conversion should be calculated on basis of the proportional part of the claim that was converted. Click here for translation DK SKM 2013-699 Share: ... Continue to full case
New Zealand vs Alesco New Zealand Ltd March 2013 Court of Appeal NZCA 40

New Zealand vs Alesco New Zealand Ltd March 2013 Court of Appeal NZCA 40

In 2003 Alesco NZ bought two other companies in New Zealand. Its Australian owner, Alesco Corporation, funded the acquisitions by advancing the purchase amount of $78 million. In consideration Alesco NZ issued a series of optional convertible notes (OCNs or notes). The notes were non-interest bearing for a fixed term and on maturity the holder was entitled to exercise an option to convert the notes into shares. Between 2003 and 2008 Alesco NZ claimed deductions for amounts treated as interest liabilities on the notes in accordance with relevant accounting standards and a determination issued by the Commissioner against its liability to taxation in New Zealand. In the High Court Heath the Commissioner’s treatment of the OCN funding structure as a tax avoidance arrangement under section BG 1 of the Income Tax Act of 1994 and the Income Tax Act of 2004 was upheld. NewZealand-vs-Alesco-New-Zealand-Ltd-March-2013 Share: ... Continue to full case