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 of a credit facility (2.03%), which it adjusted by the percentage of the guarantee fee provided by the parent company (2%), resulting in an interest rate in accordance with the principle of equivalence equal to 4.03%. This adjustment is correct, in line with the OECD Guidelines and in the context of good administration. In particular, paragraph 10.177 of the OECD Guidelines states that: “The result of this analysis sets a maximum premium for the guarantee (the maximum amount the guarantee recipient will be willing to pay), i.e. the difference between the interest rate with the guarantee and the interest rate without the guarantee. […] The borrower would not have any incentive to enter into a guarantee agreement if, in total, he pays an amount (to the bank interest and to the guarantor commission) equal to what he would have paid to the bank without the guarantee (interest). Therefore, this maximum commission does not necessarily reflect the result of a negotiation made on a purely commercial basis, but represents the maximum that the borrower would be willing to pay’. The audit, in direct application of the OECD Guidelines, adjusted the lending rate by the maximum commission. Otherwise, the borrower would have paid an aggregate amount (interest to the bank and commission to the guarantor) higher than the amount he would have paid to the bank without the guarantee (interest).
Because the audit, to corroborate the audit findings and its reasoning , also sought external comparable data (on an ancillary basis), namely, interest rates of comparable loans from the Bank of Greece and the Bank of Denmark. The Bank of Greece yielded an interest rate of 5.02% and from the Bank of Denmark 3.70% (3% plus 0.70% to reflect the country-Greece risk ).
Because the above external comparables confirm the correctness of the audit approach, as they are close to the interest rate determined by the audit (4.03%) and at a significant deviation from the interest rate of the assessed intragroup transaction (8.1%). It should be noted that the reliance on central bank data is in line with a number of decisions of our Office (see, for example, BIT 4560/2021), but also a common methodology in numerous Documentation Files.
As therefore, the claim of the applicant is rejected as unfounded.”
Click here for English translation
Click here for other translation