“EQ LUX” had classified its interest-free intra-group contributions as loans for tax purposes and treated a Malaysian branch with very limited substance as a permanent establishment.
The tax authorities reclassified the loans as equity and denied permanent-establishment status to the branch.
“EQ LUX” appealed to the Administrative Tribunal, which in May 2024 dismissed the appeal and upheld the additional-tax assessment issued by the authorities.
A further appeal was lodged with the Administrative Court.
Judgment
The Administrative Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision and ruled in favour of the tax authorities.
Applying the substance-over-form doctrine, the Court confirmed that the “loans” were, in substance, equity: they financed long-term assets, produced an excessive debt-to-equity ratio, lacked genuine repayment guarantees and, in their economic context, behaved like capital. The Court dismissed the taxpayer’s reliance on Luxembourg’s informal 85/15 leverage guideline and rejected the submitted transfer-pricing study for failing to analyse realistic alternatives. It emphasised that debt-capacity considerations belong in the initial classification exercise, not as a later adjustment.
The Court also found that the Malaysian branch failed the treaty tests of having a fixed place of business, permanence and effective business activity. EQ LUX could not prove the branch’s office location, the presence of staff or any Malaysian business functions beyond a paper allocation of shares; permanent-establishment status was therefore denied.
Excerpts in English
“Considering that even a moderately diligent and conscientious manager, seeking to ensure the profitability of a commercial operation, would not waive the collection of interest when it has granted a loan to its subsidiary, would not advance funds while ultimately assuming all the consequences if it did not seek a certain return in the medium or long term, and would not have encouraged undercapitalisation as in the present case; that it follows that an independent creditor acting in accordance with market practice would not have granted credit to the claimant in the given situation;
Considering that, in tax law, ‘hidden distribution and hidden contribution are similar transactions with the following characteristics. They involve the granting of an advantage between related parties motivated by social relations’ (Tax Studies No. 113/114/115, Guy Heintz, Income Tax on Local Authorities);
Considering that it follows from the foregoing that the tax office made a correct assessment of the facts and that it was right not to recognise the existence of a permanent establishment in Malaysia, while reclassifying the alleged debt instruments as hidden contributions;
”
“In view of the above, the appellant’s argument concerning the existence of a fixed place of business in the form of a branch in Malaysia must be rejected and the court’s assessment on this point must be upheld.
Consequently, this second part of the appeal is unfounded and the judgment under appeal must be upheld in this respect.
Since the Court has just held, like the first judges, that the Direct Taxation Authority validly reclassified the disputed loans on the basis of the principle of economic assessment and validly found that there was no alleged branch and, therefore, no permanent establishment of the appellant in Malaysia, the question of whether there was an abuse of rights is no longer relevant. The tax treatment criticised by the appellant is already justified by these conclusions, since, in the absence of a permanent establishment in Malaysia, Luxembourg retains the right to tax the appellant’s income and net assets and it is not possible for the appellant to have transferred its shareholdings to a non-existent branch. In other words, since the appellant has failed to meet the burden of proof incumbent upon it to demonstrate the facts on which it relies in order to obtain tax treatment different from that adopted by the Direct Taxation Administration, it is not necessary to consider the issue of abuse of rights in order to justify the tax treatment criticised.”
Click here for English translation
Click here for other translation