Legal issue: Local anti avoidance

AFIP has published a non exhaustive list of Low and No Tax Jurisdictions (LNTJ)

blank

The Federal Tax Administration of Argentine (AFIP) has published a non exhaustive list of 41 Low and No Tax Jurisdictions (LNTJ). The list related to Law 27,430 from 29 December 2017 which introduced certain adverse tax implications for transactions with LNTJs. For instance, according to the Law transactions with unrelated parties in LNTJs are not deemed arm’s length for transfer pricing purposes. Furthermore such transactions are required to be reported to the tax authorities. LNTJs […]

Japan vs Universal Music Corp, April 2022, Supreme Court, Case No 令和2(行ヒ)303

blank

An intercompany loan in the form of a so-called international debt pushdown had been issued to Universal Music Japan to acquire the shares of another Japanese group company. The tax authority found that the loan transaction had been entered for the principal purpose of reducing the tax burden in Japan and issued an assessment where deductions of the interest payments on the loan had been disallowed for tax purposes. The Tokyo District Court decided in […]

Denmark vs Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS, March 2021, High Court, Cases B-721-13

blank

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 […]

Poland vs “X-TM” sp. z o.o., March 2022, Administrative Court, SA/PO 1058/21

blank

On 30 November 2012, X sold its trademarks to subsidiary C which in turn sold the trademarks to subsidiary D. X and D then entered into a trademark license agreement according to which X would pay license fees to D. These license fees were deducted by X in its 2013 tax return. The tax authorities claimed that X had understated its taxabel income as the license fees paid by X to D for the use […]

Norway vs Fortis Petroleum Norway AS, March 2022, Court of Appeal, Case No LB-2021-26379

blank

In 2009-2011 Fortis Petroleum Norway AS (FPN) bought seismic data related to oil exploration in the North Sea from a related party, Petroleum GeoServices AS (PGS), for NKR 95.000.000. FBN paid the amount by way of a convertible intra-group loan from PGS in the same amount. FPN also purchased administrative services from another related party, Consema, and later paid a substantial termination fee when the service contract was terminated. The acquisition costs, interest on the […]

Italy vs Arnoldo Mondadori Editore SpA , February 2022, Supreme Court, Cases No 3380/2022

blank

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, […]

Netherlands – Crop Tax Advisers, January 2022, Court of Appeal, Case No. 200.192.332/01, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2022:343

blank

The question at issue was whether a Crop tax adviser had acted in accordance with the requirements of a reasonably competent and reasonably acting adviser when advising on the so-called royalty routing and its implementation. Judgement of the Court of Appeal “Crop is liable for the damages arising from the shortcoming. For the assessment of that damage, the case must be referred to the Statement of Damages, as the District Court has already decided. To […]

Portugal vs “GAAR S.A.”, January 2022, Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, Case No : JSTA000P28772

blank

“GAAR S.A” is a holding company with a share capital of EUR 55,000.00. In 2010, “GAAR S.A” was in a situation of excess equity capital resulting from an accumulation of reserves (EUR 402,539.16 of legal reserves and EUR 16,527,875.72 of other reserves). The Board of Directors, made up of three shareholders – B………… (holder of 21,420 shares, corresponding to 42.84% of the share capital), C………… (holder of a further 21,420 shares, corresponding to 42.84% of […]

Finland vs D Oy, December 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. KHO:2021:179

blank

At issue was whether interest expenses incurred as a result of intra-group liabilities related to the acquisition of shares were tax deductible. In August 2010, the Swedish companies H AB and B AB had agreed, among other things, to sell E Oy’s shares to B AB and to allow B AB to transfer its rights and obligations to purchase the said shares directly or indirectly to its own subsidiary. B AB’s subsidiary had established D […]

Finland vs G Oy, December 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. KHO:2021:178

blank

At issue was whether interest expenses incurred as a result of intra-group liabilities related to the acquisition of shares were tax deductible. In 2005, CA / S, indirectly owned by private equity investors A and B, had purchased a listed share in DA / S. DA / S’s subsidiary EA / S had established H AB in July 2008. On 25 August 2008, EA / S had transferred approximately 83.8 per cent of F Oy’s […]

Next Page »