Tag: Guarantee fee

Netherlands vs "Tobacco B.V.", October 2022, Rechtbank Noord-Holland, Case No ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2022:8936

Netherlands vs “Tobacco B.V.”, October 2022, Rechtbank Noord-Holland, Case No ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2022:8936

“Tobacco B.V.” is a Dutch company belonging to an international tobacco group. Following an audit an assessment of additional taxable income of €196,001,385, €220,624,304 and €179,896,349 for FY 2008-2010 was issued to “Tobacco B.V.”, and a penalty for non-compliance for FY 2010 of €477,624 was imposed. The dispute focused on whether the fees charged by various group companies for supplies and services had been at arm’s length. To finance their activities, the group companies issued listed bonds under the tobacco group’s so-called EMTN Programme, guaranteed by the parent company in the UK. For this, the claimant paid an annual guarantee fee to the parent company of approximately €35,000,000. Judgement of the court – the guarantee fees are not expenses originating from the “Tobacco B.V.”‘s acceptance of liability for debts of an affiliated company; – the EMTN Programme is not a credit arrangement within the meaning of the Umbrella Credit Judgment (ECLI:NL:HR:2013:BW6520); – the tax authorities has not made it plausible ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.161

Where the effect of a guarantee is to permit a borrower to borrow a greater amount of debt than it could in the absence of the guarantee, the guarantee is not simply supporting the credit rating of the borrower but could be acting both to increase the borrowing capacity and to reduce the interest rate on any existing borrowing capacity of the borrower. In such a situation there may be two issues – whether a portion of the loan from the lender to the borrower is accurately delineated as a loan from the lender to the guarantor (followed by an equity contribution from the guarantor to the borrower), and whether the guarantee fee paid with respect to the portion of the loan that is respected as a loan from the lender to the borrower is arm’s length. The conclusion of an analysis of such transactions may be, taking into account the full facts and circumstances, that the evaluation of the ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.148

These cross-guarantees and set-off rights are a feature of an arrangement which would not occur between independent parties. Each guarantor is providing a guarantee for all members of the pool but will not have control over membership of the pool, has no control over the quantum of the debt which it is guaranteeing, and may not be able to access information on the parties for whom it is providing a guarantee. With other parties providing guarantees on the same loans, it may not be possible for the guarantor to evaluate its real risk in the event of a default. Thus, the practical result of the cross- guaranteeing arrangement is such that the formal guarantee may represent nothing more than an acknowledgement that it would be detrimental to the interests of the MNE group not to support the performance of the cash pool leader and so, by extension, the borrower. In such circumstances the guaranteed borrower may not be benefitting beyond ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.147

As part of the cash pooling arrangement, cross-guarantees and rights of set-off between participants in the cash pool may be required. This raises the question of whether guarantee fees should be payable. It will always be appropriate to consider the particular facts and circumstances in any situation but there are certain factors which are likely to be common to many cash pools: there will be numerous members of the pool, there may be both entities with debit positions and entities with credit positions in the pool, each pool member may have a different stand-alone credit rating, and the pooling agreement with the bank is likely to require full cross-guarantees and rights of set-off between all pool participants ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.187

The facts relating to S’s credit standing and borrowing power are identical to those in the preceding example. S borrows EUR 50 million from Bank A. The functional analysis suggests that Bank A would lend to S at an interest rate applicable to A rated borrowers without any formal guarantee. However, P agrees to guarantee the loan from Bank A in order to induce Bank A to lend at the interest rate that would be available to AAA rated borrowers. Under these circumstances, S should be required to pay a guarantee fee to P for providing the express guarantee. In calculating an arm’s length guarantee fee, the fee should reflect the benefit of raising S’s credit standing from A to AAA, not the benefit of raising S’s credit standing from Baa to AAA. The enhancement of S’s credit standing from Baa to A is attributable to the group synergy derived purely from passive association in the group which need not ... Read more
Italy vs BenQ Italy SRL, March 2021, Corte di Cassazione, Sez. 5 Num. 1374 Anno 2022

Italy vs BenQ Italy SRL, March 2021, Corte di Cassazione, Sez. 5 Num. 1374 Anno 2022

BenQ Italy SRL is part of a multinational group headed by the Taiwanese company BenQ Corporation that sells and markets technology products, consumer electronics, computing and communications devices. BenQ Italy’s immediate parent company was a Dutch company, BenQ Europe PV. Following an audit the tax authorities issued a notice of assessment for FY 2003 in which the taxpayer was accused of having procured goods from companies operating in countries with privileged taxation through the fictitious interposition of a Dutch company (BenQ Europe BV), the parent company of the taxpayer, whose intervention in the distribution chain was deemed uneconomic. On the basis of these assumptions, the tax authorities found that the recharge of costs made by the interposed company, were non-deductible. The tax authorities also considered that, through the interposition of BenQ BV, the prices charged by the taxpayer were aimed at transferring most of the taxable income to the manufacturing companies of the BenQ Group located in countries with privileged ... Read more
Korea vs "K-GAS Corp", November 2021, Daegu District Court, Case No 2019구합22561

Korea vs “K-GAS Corp”, November 2021, Daegu District Court, Case No 2019구합22561

K-GAS Corp had issued loans and performance guarantees to overseas subsidiaries but received no remuneration in return. The tax authorities issued an assessment where additional taxable income was determined by application of the arm’s length principle. An appeal was filed by K-GAS with the district court. Decision of the Court The court upheld the decision of the tax authorities and dismissed the appeal of K-GAS Corp. Excerpts related to loans “In light of the following circumstances, which can be known by the above acknowledged facts, in light of the above legal principles, it is not economically reasonable for the Plaintiff to decide not to receive interest on the self-financing portion of the case loan to the subsidiaries in question 1 until the end of the exploration phase, and there is no illegality in the method of calculating the normal price of the Defendant. … …the Plaintiff lent the money raised from the outside to the subsidiaries in the first issue, ... Read more
France vs Genefinance (Interga), July 2021, Conseil d'Etat, Case No. 434268

France vs Genefinance (Interga), July 2021, Conseil d’Etat, Case No. 434268

Genefinance – previously Interga – carried out a credit risk guarantee activity for the benefit of certain foreign branches and subsidiaries of the Société Générale group to which it belonged. Following an audit, the tax authorities considered the amount of premiums paid by foreign entities in 2008 and 2009 to be insufficient in relation to the guarantees granted and considered that the advantage thus granted characterised a transfer of profits within the meaning of Article 57 of the General Tax Code. The tax authorities noted that Interga, which had previously been profitable, in 2008 and 2009 had recorded significant losses, as the amount of guarantee premiums received was not sufficient to cover the expenses resulting from the guarantee calls. It found that the amount of the guarantees paid to the client entities corresponded to the difference between the cost of the risk for each of these entities and twice their respective average gross operating income and that, in return for ... Read more

TPG2020 Chapter X paragraph 10.148

These cross-guarantees and set-off rights are a feature of an arrangement which would not occur between independent parties. Each guarantor is providing a guarantee for all members of the pool but will not have control over membership of the pool, has no control over the quantum of the debt which it is guaranteeing, and may not be able to access information on the parties for whom it is providing a guarantee. With other parties providing guarantees on the same loans, it may not be possible for the guarantor to evaluate its real risk in the event of a default. Thus, the practical result of the cross- guaranteeing arrangement is such that the formal guarantee may represent nothing more than an acknowledgement that it would be detrimental to the interests of the MNE group not to support the performance of the cash pool leader and so, by extension, the borrower. In such circumstances the guaranteed borrower may not be benefitting beyond ... Read more

TPG2020 Chapter X paragraph 10.147

As part of the cash pooling arrangement, cross-guarantees and rights of set-off between participants in the cash pool may be required. This raises the question of whether guarantee fees should be payable. It will always be appropriate to consider the particular facts and circumstances in any situation but there are certain factors which are likely to be common to many cash pools: there will be numerous members of the pool, there may be both entities with debit positions and entities with credit positions in the pool, each pool member may have a different stand-alone credit rating, and the pooling agreement with the bank is likely to require full cross-guarantees and rights of set-off between all pool participants ... Read more
India vs Aegis Ltd, January 2018, High Court of Bombay, Case No 1248 of 2016

India vs Aegis Ltd, January 2018, High Court of Bombay, Case No 1248 of 2016

Aegis Ltd had advanced money to an assosiated enterprice (AE)  and recived preference shares carrying no dividend in return. The Indian Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) held that the “acqusition of preference shares” were in fact equivalent to an interest free loan advanced by Aegis Ltd to the assosiated enterprice and accordingly re-characterised the transaction and issued an assessment for 2009 and 2010 where interest was charged on notional basis. Aegis Ltd disagreed with the assessment of the TPO and brought the case before the Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal did not accept the conclusions of the TPO. “The TPO cannot disregard the apparent transaction and substitute the same without any material of exceptional circumstances pointing out that the assessee had tried to conceal the real transaction or that the transaction in question was sham. The Tribunal observed that the TPO cannot question the commercial expediency of the assessee entered into such transaction.” The Indian Revenue Service then filed an appeal to the High ... Read more

TPG2017 Chapter I paragraph 1.167

The facts relating to S’s credit standing and borrowing power are identical to those in the preceding example. S borrows EUR 50 million from Bank A. The functional analysis suggests that Bank A would lend to S at an interest rate applicable to A rated borrowers without any formal guarantee. However, P agrees to guarantee the loan from Bank A in order to induce Bank A to lend at the interest rate that would be available to AAA rated borrowers. Under these circumstances, S should be required to pay a guarantee fee to P for providing the express guarantee. In calculating an arm’s length guarantee fee, the fee should reflect the benefit of raising S’s credit standing from A to AAA, not the benefit of raising S’s credit standing from Baa to AAA. The enhancement of S’s credit standing from Baa to A is attributable to the group synergy derived purely from passive association in the group which need not ... Read more
Korean vs Guarantee fees Corp, October 2015, Korean Court, Case No 2014구합65806

Korean vs Guarantee fees Corp, October 2015, Korean Court, Case No 2014구합65806

Up until 2015 it had been the practice of the Korean tax authorities to issue tax assessments to Korean parent companies for providing guarantees to foreign subsidiaries without receiving appropriate arm’s-length guarantee fees. To that end, the Korean tax authorities had developed a credit assessment model. In this case the court ruled on the appropriatenes of this model. The court decided that the model was inappropriate due to: (1) Availability of the data used (2) Usage of domestic corporate bankruptcy rate (3) Disregard of industry-specific and non-financial information, implied warranties and local factors. Click here for translation Korea vs Guarantee fee corp 21 October 2015 ... Read more
Canada vs. General Electric Capital. November 2010

Canada vs. General Electric Capital. November 2010

In the case of General Electric Capital, Canada, the issue was if a 1% guarantee fee  paid by General Electric Capital Canada Inc. to its AAA-rated US parent company satisfied the arm’s length test. The Canadian tax administration argued  that implicit support resulted in General Electric Canada having a AAA credit rating, so that the guarantee provided by the US parent had no value. Taxpayer argued that the 1% guarantee fee did not exceed arm’s length pricing and that implicit support from the US parent should be ignored since it stemmed from the non-arm’s length relationship. The Tax Court agreed with the tax administration that implicit support should be taken into account and applied a “yield approach,” comparing the interest rate the Canadian company would have paid with and without the guarantee. The Tax Court found that credit rating of the Canadian company – with implicit support but without the guarantee – was at most BBB-/BB+ and the 1% guarantee was arm’s length. The Federal Court of Appeal approved of both the Tax Court’s yield approach and its ... Read more
France vs. LAINIERE DE PICARDIE, March 1989, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 77581

France vs. LAINIERE DE PICARDIE, March 1989, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 77581

Article 9 of the Franco-Brazilian Tax Convention of 10 September 1971 contains provisions according to which, in the case of companies that are not at arm’s length from each other, profits that have been transferred directly or indirectly by a company of one of the contracting States to a company of the other contracting State may be included in the profits of the first company and taxed accordingly. It is clear from these provisions that they allow the administration of the State to which an enterprise which, by virtue of its situation and operations, falls within their scope belongs, to apply the domestic tax law. On the basis of the provisions of Article 57 of the CGI, the administration reintegrated into the company’s results subject to corporate income tax the commissions, evaluated at the rate of 0.50%, that the company should have received as remuneration for the guarantees that it had granted to its Brazilian subsidiary as a guarantee for ... Read more