Tag: Double tax treaty

Italy vs CDC srl, December 2018, Italian Supreme Court, Case No 32255/2018

Italy vs CDC srl, December 2018, Italian Supreme Court, Case No 32255/2018

A refund of withholding tax on dividend payments from an Italien subsidiary, CDC srl, was claimed by the parent company in Luxembourg, CDC Net SA. The parent company had been subject to income tax in Luxembourg as required by the EU Directive, but in Luxembourg there were no actual taxation of the dividends. The refund was denied as, according to the authorities, the Luxembourg company did not meet the requirements of the EU Directive due to lack of actual taxation of the dividends in Luxembourg. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the tax authorities and denied the refund of withholding taxes under the European Parent Subsidiary Directive (Directive 90/435/EEC, Article 5, paragraph 1, ) as no double taxation existed due to the dividend exemption regime in Luxembourg. Click here for translation Italy Dividend Supreme Court 2018 ... Continue to full case

Korea vs Company A, November 29, 2018, Supreme Court Case no. 2018Du38376

The issue in this case was the meaning of and standard for determining what constitutes “beneficial owner” as prescribed by Article 10(2)(a) of the Convention between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Hungarian People’s Republic for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income. Whether a tax treaty may be deemed inapplicable in the event that treaty abuse is acknowledged according to the principle of substantial taxation under the Framework Act on National Taxes even if constituting a beneficial owner of dividend income (affirmative) In a case where: (a) Company A, in paying dividends on six occasions to Hungary-based Company B that owns 50% of its shares, paid the withheld corporate tax based on the limited tax rate of 5% as prescribed by Article 10(2)(a) of the Convention between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Hungarian People’s Republic for ... Continue to full case

Korea vs CJ E&M Co., Ltd., November 2018, Supreme Court Case no. 2018Du38376

In 2011, a Korean company, CJ E&M Co., Ltd concluded a license agreement relating to the domestic distribution of Paramount films, etc. with Hungary-based entity Viacom International Hungary Kft (hereinafter “VIH”), which is affiliated with the global entertainment content group Viacom that owns the film producing company Paramount and music channel MTV. From around that time to December 2013, the Plaintiff paid VIH royalties amounting to roughly KRW 13.5 billion (hereinafter “pertinent royalty income”). CJ E&M Co., Ltd did not withhold the corporate tax regarding the pertinent royalty income according to Article 12(1) of the Convention between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Hungarian People’s Republic for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income (hereinafter “Korea-Hungary Tax Treaty”). The Hungarian company was interposed between the Korean entertainment company and a Dutch company which previously licensed the rights to the Korean entertainment company. The Korean ... Continue to full case
Netherlands vs X B.V., November 2018, Supreme Court, Case No 17/03918

Netherlands vs X B.V., November 2018, Supreme Court, Case No 17/03918

Company X B.V. held all the shares in the Irish company A. The Tax Agency in the Netherlands claimed that the Irish company A qualified as a “low-taxed investment participation”. The court agreed, as company A was not subject to a taxation of 10 per cent or more in Ireland. The Tax Agency also claimed that X B.V.’s profit should include a hidden dividend due to company A’s providing an interest-free loan to another associated Irish company E. The court agreed. Irish company E had benefited from the interest-free loan and this benefit should be regarded as a dividend distribution. It was then claimed by company X B.V, that the tax treaty between the Netherlands and Ireland did not permit including hidden dividends in X’s profit. The Supreme Court disagreed and found that the hidden dividend falls within the scope of the term “dividends” in article 8 of the tax treaty. Click here for translation ECLI-NL-HR-2018-2034 ... Continue to full case
Australia vs Satyam Computer Services Limited, October 2018, Federal Court of Australia, Case No FCAFC 172

Australia vs Satyam Computer Services Limited, October 2018, Federal Court of Australia, Case No FCAFC 172

The question in this case was whether payments received by Satyam Computer Services Limited (now Tech Mahindra Ltd) from its Australian clients – that were royalties for the purposes of Article 12 of the tax treaty with India, but not otherwise royalties under Australian tax law – were deemed to be Australian source income by reason of Article 23 of the tax treaty and ss 4 and 5 of the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 and therefore included in the company’s assessable income for Australian tax purposes. The answer provided by the Federal Court confirmed this to be the case. Click here for translation 2018FCAFC0172 ... Continue to full case
Poland vs CP Corp, September 2016, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. II FSK 2299/14

Poland vs CP Corp, September 2016, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. II FSK 2299/14

A Polish company were planning to enter into a inter-group cash pooling agreement. The cash pooling operation were to be managed by a foreign bank, which would open a group account as a basic account for Norwegien parent company, the pool leader. The question was whether the taxation of interest payments made from the Polish company to the pool leader will apply art. 21 par. 3 of the Corporate Income Tax Act, as a result of which interest should be exempt from withholding tax, and if not – whether the taxation of the interest will apply art. 11 of the tax treaty between Norway and Poland. In this judgement the Court stated that the cash pool leader cannot be regarded as the owner of all receivables paid to the group account, because it is not entitled to dispose of the interest in its sole discretion. The judgement in this case is aligned with prior rulings of 11 June 2015, file ... Continue to full case
Poland vs Cash Pool Corp, March 2016, Supreme administrative Court, Case No. II FSK 3666/13

Poland vs Cash Pool Corp, March 2016, Supreme administrative Court, Case No. II FSK 3666/13

In a request for a binding ruling, a Polish Company indicated that it was joining an inter-group Cash Pooling Agreement (“Agreement”) in which the leader was based in Luxembourg. Under the Agreement, the pool leader acts as a regional financial center and consolidates the balances of current accounts of all the cash pool participants. The banking platform used by the Group for the purposes of Cash Pooling is operated by D. Bank (“DB”) based in Germany. The actual operation of the Cash pooling system will consist in automated transfers of positive balances existing on the accounts of participants of Cash pooling, including the applicant’s account at the end of the settlement day into the superior account of Leader. The Minister of Finance found that the role of Cash pool leader boils down to the management of cash that will flow from participants in the cash pooling system. It is the companies participating in this cash pool that can actually enjoy ... Continue to full case
Germany vs Capital GmbH, June 2015, Bundesfinanzhof, Case No I R 29/14

Germany vs Capital GmbH, June 2015, Bundesfinanzhof, Case No I R 29/14

The German subsidiary of a Canadian group lent significant sums to its under-capitalised UK subsidiary. The debt proved irrecoverable and was written off in 2002 when the UK company ceased trading. At the time, such write-offs were permitted subject to adherence to the principle of dealing at arm’s length. In its determination of profits on October 31, 2002, the German GmbH made a partial write-off of the repayment claim against J Ltd. in the amount of 717.700 €. The tax authorities objected that the unsecured loans were not at arm’s length. The tax authorities subjected the write-down of the claims from the loan, which the authorities considered to be equity-replacing, to the deduction prohibition of the Corporation Tax Act. The authorities further argued that if this was not the case, then, due to the lack of loan collateral, there would be a profit adjustment pursuant to § 1 of the Foreign Taxation Act. Irrespective of this, the unsecured loans had ... Continue to full case
Poland vs Cash Pool Corp, Warsaw Administrative Court, Case no II-FSK-1518-13

Poland vs Cash Pool Corp, Warsaw Administrative Court, Case no II-FSK-1518-13

In a request for a binding ruling, a Polish Company indicated that it was joining an inter-group Cash Pooling Agreement (“Agreement”) in which the leader was based in Luxembourg. Under the Agreement, the pool leader acts as a regional financial center and consolidates the balances of current accounts of all the cash pool participants. The banking platform used by the Group for the purposes of Cash Pooling is operated by D. Bank (“DB”) based in Germany. The actual operation of the Cash pooling system will consist in automated transfers of positive balances existing on the accounts of participants of Cash pooling, including the applicant’s account at the end of the settlement day into the superior account of Leader. The Minister of Finance found that the role of Cash pool leader boils down to the management of cash that will flow from participants in the cash pooling system. It is the companies participating in this cash pool that can actually enjoy ... Continue to full case
Switzerland vs DK Bank, May 2015, Federal Supreme Court, Case No BGE 141 II 447)

Switzerland vs DK Bank, May 2015, Federal Supreme Court, Case No BGE 141 II 447)

The Federal Supreme Court denied the refund of withholding taxes claimed by a Danish bank on the basis of the double tax treaty between Denmark and Switzerland due to the lack of beneficial ownership. The Danish bank entered into total return swap agreements with different clients. For hedging purposes, the Danish bank purchased a certain amount of the underlying assets (companies listed in the Swiss stock exchange) and received dividend distributions from these Swiss companies. The Federal Supreme Court was of the opinion that the Danish bank lost the right for refund of the withholding taxes on the dividends received based on the DTT-DK/CH. According to the Federal Supreme Court, the Danish Bank could not be qualified as the beneficial owner of these shares. The Federal Supreme Court denied the beneficial ownership on the grounds that the Danish bank was, in fact, obliged to transfer the dividends to the respective parties of the total return swap agreements. Click here for ... Continue to full case
Finland vs. Corp, July 2014, Supreme Administrative Court HFD 2014:119

Finland vs. Corp, July 2014, Supreme Administrative Court HFD 2014:119

A Ab had in 2009 from its majority shareholder B, based in Luxembourg, received a EUR 15 million inter-company loan. A Ab had in 2009 deducted 1,337,500 euros in interest on the loan. The loan had been granted on the basis that the banks financing A’s operations had demanded that the company acquire additional financing, which in the payment scheme would be a subordinated claim in relation to bank loans, and by its nature a so-called IFRS hybrid, which the IFRS financial statements were treated as equity. The loan was guaranteed. The fixed annual interest rate on the loan was 30 percent. The loan could be paid only on demand by A Ab. The Finnish tax authorities argued that the legal form of the inter-company loan agreed between related parties should be disregarded, and the loan reclassified as equity. Interest on the loan would therefore not be deductible for A Ab. According to the Supreme Administrative Court interest on the loan was tax deductible. The Supreme Administrative ... Continue to full case
Germany vs. US taxpayer. October 2013, Supreme Tax Court judgment IX R 25/12

Germany vs. US taxpayer. October 2013, Supreme Tax Court judgment IX R 25/12

The Supreme Tax Court has held that the costs incurred by a taxpayer in connection with a tax treaty mutual agreement proceeding are not costs of earning the relevant income, but has left open a possible deduction as “unusual expenses”. A US resident realised a gain on the sale of a share in a GmbH. The German tax office sought to tax the gain, but the taxpayer objected on the grounds that it was taxable in the US under the double tax treaty. This tax office did not accept this objection, so a mutual agreement proceeding was requested in an effort to clear the issue. Ultimately, the two governments agreed to split the taxing right in the ratio 60:40 in favour of Germany. However, the taxpayer had incurred various consultancy and legal costs in the course of the process and these should, he claimed, be deducted from the taxable gain, as they would not have arisen without it. The tax office ... Continue to full case