TPcases

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 second agreement (credit facility agreement) whereby EIL granted EBL Italia a loan for an amount equal to the receivables being acquired.

Both the tax commissions of first and of second instance had found the Office’s actions to be legitimate. According to the C.T.R., in particular, the existence of a “symmetrical connection between two financing contracts entered into, both signed on the same date (31/07/2006) and the assignments of such credits to EBL Italia made on 20/12/2006, with identical terms and conditions” and the fact that “EBL Italia accounted for the interest expenses paid to EIL in a manner exactly mirroring the interest income paid by Rosen, so as to channel the same interest, by contractual obligation, punctually to EIL’ showed that EBL Italia ‘had no management autonomy and was obliged to pay all the income flows, that is to say, the interest, obtained by Rosen immediately to the Luxembourg company EIL’, with the result that the actual beneficiary of the interest had to be identified in the Luxembourg company EIL.

Judgement of the Court

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of the notices of assessment issued by the Regional Tax Commission, for failure to apply the withholding tax on interest expense paid.

According to the Court ‘abuse in the technical sense’ must be kept distinct from the verification of whether or not the company receiving the income flows meets the requirements to benefit from advantages that would otherwise not be due to it. One thing is the abuse of rights, another thing are the requirements to be met in order to be entitled to the benefits recognised by provisions inspired by anti-abuse purposes.

“On the subject of the exemption of interest (and other income flows) from taxation pursuant to Article 26, of Presidential Decree No. 600 of 29 September 1973”, the burden of proof it is on the taxpayer company, which claims to be the “beneficial owner”. To this end, it is necessary for it to pass three tests, autonomous and disjointed”

1. the recipient company performs an actual economic activity
2. the recipient company can freely dispose of the interest received and is not required to remit it to a third party
3. the recipient company has a function in the financing transaction and is not a mere conduit company (or société relais), whose interposition is aimed exclusively at a tax saving.

The Supreme Court also ruled out the merely ‘domestic’ nature of the transaction as it actually consisted in a cross-border payment of interest.

Click here for English translation

Click here for other translation