New Zealand vs Cullen Group Limited, March 2019, New Zealand High Court, Case No [2019] NZHC 404

Posted on | By Courts of New Zealand | No comments
Category: General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR), Tax Avoidance Schemes, Withholding Tax (WHT) | Tag: , , , , , ,
« | »

In moving to the United Kingdom, a New Zealand citizen, Mr. Eric Watson, restructured a significant shareholding into debt owed by a New Zealand company, Cullen Group Ltd, to two Cayman Island conduit companies, all of which he still controlled to a high degree. This allowed Cullen Group Ltd to pay an Approved Issuer Levy (AIL) totalling $8 million, rather than Non-Resident Withholding Tax of $59.5 million.

The steps in the arrangement were as follows:

(a) Mr Watson sold his shares in Cullen Investments Ltd to Cullen Group, at a (rounded) value of $193 million, being $291 million less his previous $98 million shareholder advances. The sale was conditional on Cullen Investments Ltd selling its shares in Medical Holdings Ltd to Mr Watson and on Cullen Investments Ltd selling its shares in Vonelle Holdings Ltd to Maintenance Ltd which was owned by Mr Watson.

(b) Cullen Group’s purchase of the Cullen Investments Ltd shares from Mr Watson was funded by a vendor loan from Mr Watson of $193 million (Loan A). Mr Watson also lent Cullen Group $98 million (Loan B) which Cullen Group on-lent to Cullen Investments Ltd so that Cullen Investments Ltd could repay Mr Watson’s shareholder advance of that amount.

(c) Mr Watson assigned his rights under Loans A and B to the two conduit companies, Modena and Mayfair, respectively. Mr Watson made back-to-back loans of $193 million (Modena Loan) and $98 million (Mayfair Loan) to each of them to fund their payment to him of consideration for those respective assignments in return for security over all property owned by Modena and Mayfair respectively.

 

The result was therefore that Cullen Investments Ltd was owned by Cullen Group which owed money to Modena/Mayfair which owed money to Mr Watson. Effectively, instead of Mr Watson owning the shares in Cullen Investments Ltd, he held loans for the same value to Cullen Investments Ltd’s owner, Cullen Group, through Modena and Mayfair. He had exchanged equity for debt.

The tax authorities held that Cullen Group had avoided $59.5 million of NRWT (withholding tax) while it paid $8 million in Approved Issuer Levy. An assessment in the amount of the difference, $51.5 million, was issued.

There are three requirements for there to be tax avoidance in New Zealand:

  • There is an arrangement which uses, and falls within, specific tax provisions.
  • Viewed in light of the arrangement as a whole, the taxpayer has used the specific provisions in a way which cannot have been within the contemplation and purpose of Parliament when it enacted the provisions.
  • The arrangement has a purpose or effect, that is more than merely incidental, of directly or indirectly altering the incidence of income tax.

The High Court found there was a tax avoidance arrangement because it was not within Parliament’s contemplation and purpose in enacting the Approved Issuer Levy regime. Cullen Group Ltd was found liable for the $51.5 million difference plus interest and penalties.

1Cuo

Related Guidelines

TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 716. Primero is the parent company of an MNE group engaged in the pharmaceutical business and does business in country M. Primero develops patents and other intangibles relating to Product X and registers those patents in countries around the world. 17. Primero retains its wholly owned country N subsidiary, Company...
TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.71There are many definitions of risk, but in a transfer pricing context it is appropriate to consider risk as the effect of uncertainty on the objectives of the business. In all of a company’s operations, every step taken to exploit opportunities, every time a company spends money or generates income,...
TPG2022 Chapter VIII Annex example 521. The facts are the same as in Example 4 except that the functional analysis indicates Company A has no capacity to make decisions to take on or decline the risk-bearing opportunity represented by its participation in the CCA, or to make decisions on whether and how to respond to...
TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 11. Premiere is the parent company of an MNE group. Company S is a wholly owned subsidiary of Premiere and a member of the Premiere group. Premiere funds R&D and performs ongoing R&D functions in support of its business operations. When its R&D functions result in patentable inventions, it is...
TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.79Another key consideration would be the likely consequences for other parts of the MNE group of supporting or not supporting the borrower. The criteria used to determine the status of an entity in this regard may include such considerations as legal obligations (e.g. regulatory requirements), strategic importance, operational integration and...
TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.39As indicated in paragraph 8.9, the economically relevant characteristics of the arrangement identified under the guidance in Section D of Chapter I may indicate that the actual transaction differs from the terms of the CCA purportedly agreed by the participants. For example, one or more of the claimed participants may...
TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.189The term hard-to-value intangibles (HTVI) covers intangibles or rights in intangibles for which, at the time of their transfer between associated enterprises, (i) no reliable comparables exist, and (ii) at the time the transactions was entered into, the projections of future cash flows or income expected to be derived from...
TPG2022 Chapter II Annex I paragraph 1[See Chapter II, Part III, Section B of these Guidelines for general guidance on the application of the transactional net margin method. The assumptions about arm’s length arrangements in the following examples are intended for illustrative purposes only and should not be taken as prescribing adjustments and arm’s length arrangements...
TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.38In any case, the reliability of results is generally improved to the extent comparable borrowers pursue similar business strategies to the tested borrower involved in an intra-group transaction....
TPG2022 Chapter IX paragraph 9.38Under Article 9 of the OECD Model Tax Convention, the fact that a business restructuring arrangement is motivated by a purpose of obtaining tax benefits does not of itself warrant a conclusion that it is a non-arm’s length arrangement. The presence of a tax motive or purpose does not of...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *