Tag: Fraus legis

Anti-avoidance doctrine

Netherlands vs Lender [X] B.V., July 2021, Supreme Court, Case No ECLI:NL:2021:1152

Netherlands vs Lender [X] B.V., July 2021, Supreme Court, Case No ECLI:NL:2021:1152

In 2011 a Dutch group “Lender [X] BV” acquired “Target BV” for EUR 135 million. The acquisition was financed by four French affiliates “FCPRs” in the Dutch Group – EUR 60,345,000 in the form of convertible instruments (intercompany debt) and the remainder in the form of equity. The convertible instruments carried an interest rates of 13 percent. The four French FCPRs were considered transparent for French tax purposes, but non-transparent for Dutch tax purposes. Hence the interest payments were deducted from the taxable income reported by the Group in the Netherlands, but the interest income was not taxed in France – the structure thus resulted in a tax mismatch. The Dutch tax authorities argued that the interest payments should not be deductible as the setup of the financing structure constituted abuse of law; the financing structure was set up in this particular manner to get around a Dutch anti-abuse rule which limits interest deduction on loans from affiliated entities in ... Continue to full case
Netherlands vs X B.V., July 2021, Supreme Court, Case No ECLI:NL:2021:1102

Netherlands vs X B.V., July 2021, Supreme Court, Case No ECLI:NL:2021:1102

X B.V., a private limited company established in the Netherlands, is part of a globally operating group (hereafter: the Group). In the years under review, the head office, which was also the top holding company, was located in the USA. Until 1 February 2008, the X B.V. was, together with BV 1 and BV 2, included in a fiscal unity for corporate income tax with the Interested Party as the parent company. As of 1 February 2008, a number of companies were added to the fiscal unity, including BV 3 and BV 4. X B.V. is considered transparent for tax purposes according to US standards. Its parent company is a company domiciled in the USA, as further described in 2.1.8 below. In 2006, BV 1 borrowed € 195,000,000 under a Euro Credit Facility (ECF), a head office guaranteed credit facility with a syndicate of sixteen banks. BV 1 contributed this amount in 2007 as share premium to BV 2. BV ... Continue to full case
Netherlands vs Lender B.V., March 2021, Supreme Court, Case No ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2021:724

Netherlands vs Lender B.V., March 2021, Supreme Court, Case No ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2021:724

A Dutch company, Lender B.V., had acquired companies through a private equity structure. The Dutch company that had been set up for the purpose of the acquisition was financed by subordinated loans payable to related parties established on the island of Guernsey. In the tax return for the Dutch company interest in the amount of € 13,157,632 was deducted in the taxable income based on an interest rate of 11,5 – 14 percent. The tax authorities denied the deduction, as the financing arrangement was considered abusive. Decision of the Supreme Court The Court decided in favor of the tax authorities. The interest on the loans was determined to 2.5% (instead of the agreed 11.5 – 14%). This interest was not deductible, because granting of the loans was considered as abusive. Furthermore, an Arrangement Fee of € 8.4 mio. could not be charged at once, but had to be capitalised. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ECLI_NL_GHAMS_2021_724 ... Continue to full case
Netherlands vs X B.V., December 2020, Supreme Court (Preliminary ruling by the Advocate General), Case No 20/02096 ECLI:NL:PHR:2020:1198

Netherlands vs X B.V., December 2020, Supreme Court (Preliminary ruling by the Advocate General), Case No 20/02096 ECLI:NL:PHR:2020:1198

This case concerns a private equity takeover structure with apparently an intended international mismatch, i.e. a deduction/no inclusion of the remuneration on the provision of funds. The case was (primarily) decided by the Court of Appeal on the basis of non-business loan case law. The facts are as follows: A private equity fund [A] raised LP equity capital from (institutional) investors in its subfund [B] and then channelled it into two (sub)funds configured in the Cayman Islands, Fund [C] and [D] Fund. Participating in those two Funds were LPs in which the limited partners were the external equity investors and the general partners were Jersey-based [A] entities and/or executives. The equity raised in [A] was used for leveraged, debt-financed acquisitions of European targets to be sold at a capital gain after five to seven years, after optimising their EBITDA. One of these European targets was the Dutch [F] group. The equity used in its acquisition was provided not only by ... Continue to full case
Netherlands vs X B.V., July 2020, Supreme Court (Preliminary ruling by the Advocate General), Case No ECLI:NL:PHR:2020:672

Netherlands vs X B.V., July 2020, Supreme Court (Preliminary ruling by the Advocate General), Case No ECLI:NL:PHR:2020:672

X bv is part of the worldwide X group, a financial service provider listed on the US stock exchange. At issue is deductibility of interest payments by X bv on a € 482 million loan granted by the parent company, US Inc. In 2010 the original loan between X bv and US Inc. was converted into two loans of € 191 million and € 291 million granted by a Luxembourg finance company in the X group, to two jointly taxed subsidiaries of X bv. According to the Dutch Tax Authorities, the interest payments on these loans falls under the provisions in Dutch art. 10a of the VPB Act 1969 whereby interest deductions are restricted. The Court of appeal disagreed and ruled in favor of X bv. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court by the tax authorities. In a preliminary ruling, the Advocate General advises the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal. According to the Advocate General, X bv is ... Continue to full case
Netherlands vs [X] B.V., legal successor to [Y] U.A., March 2020, Pending before the Supreme Court, Case No ECLI:NL:PHR:2020:102

Netherlands vs [X] B.V., legal successor to [Y] U.A., March 2020, Pending before the Supreme Court, Case No ECLI:NL:PHR:2020:102

To acquire companies and resell them with capital gains a French Investment Fund distributed the capital of its investors (€ 5.4 billion in equity) between a French Fund Commun de Placement à Risques (FCPRs) and British Ltds managed by the French Investment Fund. For the purpose of acquiring the [X] group (the target), the French Investment Fund set up three legal entities in the Netherlands, [Y] UA, [B] BV, and [C] BV (the acquisition holding company). These three joint taxed entities are shown as Fiscal unit [A] below. The capital to be used for the acquisition of [X] group was divided into four FCPRs that held 30%, 30%, 30% and 10% in [Y] respectively. To get the full amount needed for the acquisition, [Y] members provided from their equity to [Y]: (i) member capital (€ 74.69 million by the FCPRs, € 1.96 million by the Fund Management, € 1.38 million by [D]) and (ii) investment in convertible instruments (hybrid loan ... Continue to full case
South Africa vs Sasol, 30 June 2017, Tax Court, Case No. TC-2017-06 - TCIT 13065

South Africa vs Sasol, 30 June 2017, Tax Court, Case No. TC-2017-06 – TCIT 13065

The taxpayer is registered and incorporated in the Republic of South Africa and carries on business in the petrochemical industry. It has some of its subsidiaries in foreign jurisdictions. Business activities include the importation and refinement of crude oil. This matter concerns the analysis of supply agreements entered into between the XYZ Corp and some of its foreign subsidiaries. It thus brings to fore, inter alia the application of the South African developing fiscal legal principles, namely, residence based taxation, section 9D of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 and other established principles of tax law, such as anti-tax avoidance provisions and substance over form. Tax avoidance is the use of legal methods to modify taxpayer’s financial situation to reduce the amount of tax that is payable SARS’s ground of assessment is that the XYZ Group structure constituted a transaction, operation or scheme as contemplated in section 103(1) of the Act. The structure had the effect of avoiding liability ... Continue to full case