C is the parent company of the C-group which is involved in the construction business. C is part of a joint venture and for the expansion of these activities a framework agreement on shareholder loans was concluded. Under the agreement two shareholder loans were granted: ***loan*** II totalling 212,935,716.33 euros and ***loan*** III totalling 446,000,000 euros. At issue is whether (***loan*** II and ***loan*** III) are to be regarded as hidden equity capital or debt capital. In regards of loan II a binding ruling had previously been issued stating that the loan was hidden equity. C took the position that both loan II and loan III were to be treated for tax purposes as equity capital. Following an audit the tax authorities assessed both shareholder loans as debt capital and added interest income to the taxable income of C. In regards of the binding ruling previously issued, the authorities stated that the underlying facts had changed to such an extend ... Read more

In 2012, Flir Commercial Systems AB sold intangible assets from a branch in Belgium and subsequently claimed a tax relief of more than SEK 2 billion in fictitious Belgian tax due to the sale. The Swedish Tax Agency decided not to allow relief for the Belgian “tax”, and issued a tax assessment where the relief of approximately SEK 2 billion was denied and a surcharge of approximately SEK 800 million was added. An appeal was filed with the Administrative Court, In March 2020 the Administrative Court concluded that the Swedish Tax Agency was correct in not allowing relief for the fictitious Belgian tax. In the opinion of the Administrative Court, the Double tax agreement prevents Belgium from taxing increases in the value of the assets from the time where the assets were owned in Sweden. Consequently, any fictitious tax cannot be credited in the Swedish taxation of the transfer. The Court also considers that the Swedish Tax Agency was correct ... Read more

R. Sp. z o.o. had requested a binding ruling/interpretation regarding tax deduction for the price paid to a related entity under restructuring. The request was denied by the tax authorities, as the question – according to the authorities – could only be answered under an Advance Pricing Agreement. R. Sp. z.o.o brought the issue before the Administrative Court, where a decision in favour of R. Sp. z.o.o. was issued. An appeal was then filed by the tax authorities. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Court dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities. The tax authorities could not refuse to issue a binding ruling/interpretation on whether or not a price paid to a related party under restructuring was tax deductible. According to the Court such a question could not only be dispelled by the issuance of an Advance Pricing Agreement. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation II FSK 990_19 - Wyrok NSA z 2022-01-11 ... Read more

The company is a producer of household chemicals and belongs to the R. B. (“the Group”), which is active in the manufacture and sale of consumer products in the home, health and hygiene products industry. The Company has entered into supply agreements for the goods it produces with Group companies. On the basis of the agreements, the Applicant sells goods produced by it to entities of the Group indicated by R. A. h. Companies and to R.B. [E.] B.V. The remuneration of the Polish company was determined based on a target margin – and if the profits were below or above the target margin, an invoice was issued subtracting or adding income to arrive at the target income. The tax authorities held that the quarterly “Transfer Pricing-adjustment” was not a transfer in regards of VAT. The company then filed a request for a individual interpretation (binding ruling), which was rejected by the authorities. A complaint was filed by the company ... Read more

Lux PPL SARL received a profit participating loan (PPL) from a related company in Jersey to finance its participation in an Irish company. The participation in the Irish company was set up in the form of debt (85%) and equity (15%). The profit participating loan (PPL) carried a fixed interest of 25bps and a variable interest corresponding to 99% of the profits derived from the participation in the Irish company, net of any expenses, losses and a profit margin. After entering the arrangement, Lux PPL SARL filed a request for an binding ruling with the Luxembourg tax administration to verify that the interest charged under the PPL would not qualify as a hidden profit distribution subject to the 15% dividend withholding tax. The tax administration issued the requested binding ruling on the condition that the ruling would be terminate if the total amount of the interest charge on the PPL exceeded an arm’s length charge. Later, Lux PPL SARL received a dividend ... Read more

In 2005 an agreement was entered between the UK tax authority and GE Capital, whereby GE Capital was able to obtain significant tax benefits by routing billions of dollars through Australia, the UK and the US. HMRC later claimed, that GE Capital had failed to disclose all relevant information to HMRC prior to the agreement and therefore asked the High Court to annul the agreement. In December 2020 the High Court decided in favour of HMRC GE Capital then filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal. Judgement of the Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the High Court and thus the assessment af the HMRC. HMRC-v-GE CAPITAL 2021 ... Read more

In 2005 an agreement was entered between the UK tax authority and GE Capital, whereby GE Capital was able to obtain significant tax benefits by routing billions of dollars through Australia, the UK and the US. HMRC later claimed, that GE Capital had failed to disclose all relevant information to HMRC prior to the agreement and therefore asked the High Court to annul the agreement. The High Court ruled that HMRC could pursue the claim against GE in July 2020. Judgement of the High Court The High Court ruled in favour of the tax authorities. UK vs GE 2021 COA 1716 ... Read more

GE Capital (GE) have been routing financial transactions (AUS $ 5 billion) related to GE companies in Australia via the UK in order to gain a tax advantage – by “triple dipping” in regards to interest deductions, thus saving billions of dollars in tax in Australia, the UK and the US. Before entering into these transactions, GE obtained clearance from HMRC that UK tax rules were met, in particular new “Anti-Arbitrage Rules” introduced in the UK in 2005, specifically designed to prevent tax avoidance through the exploitation of the tax treatment of ‘hybrid’ entities in different jurisdictions. The clearance was granted by the tax authorities in 2005 based on the understanding that the funds would be used to invest in businesses operating in Australia. In total, GE’s clearance application concerned 107 cross-border loans amounting to debt financing of approximately £21.2 billion. The Australian Transaction was one part of the application. After digging into the financing structure and receiving documents from ... Read more

R. Sp. z o.o. had requested a binding ruling/interpretation regarding tax deduction for the price paid to a related entity under restructuring. The request was denied by the tax authorities, as the question – according to the authorities – could only be answered under an Advance Pricing Agreement. R. Sp. z.o.o brought the issue before the Administrative Court Judgement of the Administrative Court The Court decided in favour of R. Sp. z.o.o. According to the Court, the tax authorities could not refuse to issue a binding ruling/interpretation on whether or not a price paid to a related party under restructuring was tax deductible. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation III SA_Wa 263_18 - Wyrok WSA w Warszawie z 2018-09-26 ... Read more