Switzerland vs Swiss Investment AG, February 2020, Administrative Court Zurich, Case No SB.2018.00094 and SB.2018.00095

Posted on | By Courts of Switzerland | No comments
Category: Delineation - Substance over Form, General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR), Services and Fees, Tax Avoidance Schemes | Tag: , , , , , , , , , ,
« | »

Two Swiss investors had established a structure for the management of a private equity fund in the form of a Swiss “Investment Advisor” AG and a Jersey “Investment Mananger” Ltd. They each held 50% of the shares in the Swiss AG and 50% of the shares in the Jersey Ltd. Swiss AG and Jersey Ltd then entered an investment advisory agreement whereby the Swiss AG carried out all advisory activities on behalf of Jersey Ltd and Jersey Ltd assumed all the risk of the investments. Both investors were employed by Swiss AG and Jersey Ltd had no employees execpt two directors who each received a yearly payment of CFH 15,000.

According to the investment advisory agreement Jersey Ltd would remunerate the Swiss AG with 66% of the gross fee income. The Swiss AG would carry out all relevant functions related to investment advisory and recommend to Jersey Ltd acquisition targets which the latter would then evaluate and subsequently decides on and assume the risk of.

For provision of the advisory functions two-thirds of the total fees (of 2.25% on Assets under Management) would go to the Swiss AG, and the remaining one-third would go to the Jersey Ltd. The Swiss AG had prepared a benchmarking analysis confirming that independent private equity fund of funds (Dachfonds) earned management fees of between 0.75% and 1% on Assets under Management, which was in line with the 0.75% attributed to the Jersey Ltd.

The Swiss Tax Authorities regarded the two Swiss investors employed by the Swiss AG as the only two entrepreneurs in the structure that could have possibly taken any significant decisions. On that basis the tax authorities claimed that the 66/34 profit sharing was artificial and inconsistent with the substance of the arrangements. They argued that the Jersey Ltd should only be remunerated with a cost plus 10%.

This assessment was brought to the first instance of the tax appelant court and then to the administrative court. Both courts ruled that the set-up was artificial and not in line with OECD standards, after applying a substance-over-form approach.

Click here for translation

Verwaltungsgericht

Related Guidelines

TPG2022 Chapter II Annex II example 626. ASSET Co is the parent company of an MNE group that provides asset management services to unrelated parties. It has two subsidiaries, Company A in Country A and Company B, in Country B. 27. FUND Co is an independent asset management company that offers collective investment vehicles to retail...
TPG2022 Chapter IX paragraph 9.21A second example relates to the purported transfer of credit risk as part of a business restructuring. The analysis under Section D. 1.2.1 of Chapter I would take into account the contractual terms before and after the restructuring, but would also examine how the parties operate in relation to the...
TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.85 (Example 3)Company A has acquired ownership of a tangible asset and enters into contracts for the use of the asset with unrelated customers. Under step 1 utilisation of the tangible asset, that is the risk that there will be insufficient demand for the asset to cover the costs Company A has...
TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.221It is important to recognise that the capital adequacy requirements of a captive insurance are likely to be significantly lower than an insurer writing policies for unrelated parties. This factor should be considered and, if necessary, adjusted for in order to determine the appropriate level of capital to use when...
TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.70Assume that an investor hires a fund manager to invest funds on its account. Depending on the agreement between the investor and the fund manager, the latter may be given the authority to make portfolio investments on behalf of the investor on a day-to-day basis in a way that reflects...
TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.60The steps in the process set out in the rest of this section for analysing risk in a controlled transaction, in order to accurately delineate the actual transaction in respect to that risk, can be summarised as follows: Identify economically significant risks with specificity (see Section D.1.2.1.1). Determine how specific,...
TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.97In light of the potential complexity that may arise in some circumstances when determining whether an associated enterprise assuming a risk controls that risk, the test of control should be regarded as being met where comparable risk assumptions can be identified in a comparable uncontrolled transaction. To be comparable those...
TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.90Under step 4(ii) it should be determined whether the party assuming the risk under the contract, taking into account whether the contractual terms have been applied in the conduct of the parties under step 4(i), controls the risk and has the financial capacity to assume the risk. If all the...
TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.65Particular types of risk that may have importance in a functional analysis relating to transactions involving intangibles include (i) risks related to development of intangibles, including the risk that costly research and development or marketing activities will prove to be unsuccessful, and taking into account the timing of the investment...
TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.83 (Example 1)Company A seeks to pursue a development opportunity and hires a specialist company, Company B, to perform part of the research on its behalf. Under step 1 development risk has been identified as economically significant in this transaction, and under step 2 it has been established that under the contract...

Leave a Reply

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