Tag: Guarantee

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 10.87

A guarantee from another party may be used to support the borrower’s credit. A lender placing reliance on a guarantee or guarantees would need to evaluate the guarantor(s) in a similar way to that in which it evaluates the original borrower. For the lender to take a guarantee into account in setting or adjusting the terms and conditions of a loan, it would need to be reasonably satisfied that the guarantor(s) would be able to meet any shortfall resulting from the borrower being unable to meet its obligations in full in the event of a default. Guarantees are discussed in more detail in Section D ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.29

For instance in the case of a loan, those characteristics may include but are not limited to: the amount of the loan; its maturity; the schedule of repayment; the nature or purpose of the loan (trade credit, merger/acquisition, mortgage, etc.); level of seniority and subordination, geographical location of the borrower; currency; collateral provided; presence and quality of any guarantee; and whether the interest rate is fixed or floating ... Read more
Portugal vs "Welding Mesh SA", December 2021, CAAD Tax Arbitration, Case No 194/2021-T

Portugal vs “Welding Mesh SA”, December 2021, CAAD Tax Arbitration, Case No 194/2021-T

A Portuguese subsidiary – A SA – had received intra group loans in foreign currency and had various other transactions with foreign group companies. The tax authorities claimed that the pricing of the transactions had not been at arm’s length and that the interest payment and exchange losses on the loans were not tax deductible. Decision of CAAD The CAAD set aside the assessment and decided in favour of “Welding Mesh SA” Click here for English translation Portugal - P194_2021-T - 2021-12-07 ... Read more
Portugal vs "A Bank SGPS, S.A.", November 2021, Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, Case No JSTA00071308

Portugal vs “A Bank SGPS, S.A.”, November 2021, Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, Case No JSTA00071308

The Tax Authority had made a transfer pricing adjustment for FY 2007 in the amount of €262,500.00 arising from the provision of a guarantee for payment granted under a credit agreement between a bank and its subsidiary. The adjustment had been determined using a CUP method where the pricing of the controlled transaction had been compared to the pricing of uncontrolled bank guarantees. The Court of first instance held that “it cannot be concluded that the transactions at issue here are comparable on the basis of the criterion adopted by the Tax Authorities referred to above. In fact, although the guarantee and the independent bank guarantee may share common features, the way in which the risk falls on the guarantor and on the guarantor of the independent bank guarantee potentially generates differences that significantly affect their comparability.” An appeal was filed by the tax authorities. Decision of Supreme Administrative Court The Court dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities. In ... 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
New TPG Chapter X on Financial Transactions (and additions to TPG Chapter I) released by OECD

New TPG Chapter X on Financial Transactions (and additions to TPG Chapter I) released by OECD

Today, the OECD has released the report Transfer Pricing Guidance on Financial Transactions. The guidance in the report describes the transfer pricing aspects of financial transactions and includes a number of examples to illustrate the principles discussed in the report. Section B provides guidance on the application of the principles contained in Section D.1 of Chapter I of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines to financial transactions. In particular, Section B.1 of this report elaborates on how the accurate delineation analysis under Chapter I applies to the capital structure of an MNE within an MNE group. It also clarifies that the guidance included in that section does not prevent countries from implementing approaches to address capital structure and interest deductibility under their domestic legislation. Section B.2 outlines the economically relevant characteristics that inform the analysis of the terms and conditions of financial transactions. Sections C, D and E address specific issues related to the pricing of financial transactions (e.g. treasury functions, ... Read more

TPG2020 Chapter X paragraph 10.87

A guarantee from another party may be used to support the borrower’s credit. A lender placing reliance on a guarantee or guarantees would need to evaluate the guarantor(s) in a similar way to that in which it evaluates the original borrower. For the lender to take a guarantee into account in setting or adjusting the terms and conditions of a loan, it would need to be reasonably satisfied that the guarantor(s) would be able to meet any shortfall resulting from the borrower being unable to meet its obligations in full in the event of a default. Guarantees are discussed in more detail in Section D ... Read more

TPG2020 Chapter X paragraph 10.29

For instance in the case of a loan, those characteristics may include but are not limited to: the amount of the loan; its maturity; the schedule of repayment; the nature or purpose of the loan (trade credit, merger/acquisition, mortgage, etc.); level of seniority and subordination, geographical location of the borrower; currency; collateral provided; presence and quality of any guarantee; and whether the interest rate is fixed or floating ... Read more
Poland vs A. Sp. z o.o., March 2019, Administrative Court, Case No I SA/Rz 1178/18

Poland vs A. Sp. z o.o., March 2019, Administrative Court, Case No I SA/Rz 1178/18

A. Sp. z o.o. was established to carry out an investment project consisting in construction of a shopping center. In order to raise funds, the company concluded a loan agreement. The loan agreement was guaranteed by shareholders and other related parties. By virtue of the guarantees, the guarantors became solitarily liable for the Applicant’s obligations. The guarantees were granted free of charge. A. Sp. z o.o. was not obliged to pay any remuneration or provide any other mutual benefit to the guarantors. In connection with the above description, the following questions were asked: (1) Will A. Sp. z o.o. be obliged to prepare transfer pricing documentation in connection with the gratuitous service received, and if so, both for the year in which the surety is granted to the Applicant or also for subsequent tax years during the term of the security? (2) Will A. Sp. z o.o. be obliged to disclose the event related to the free-of-charge consideration received in ... Read more
Italy vs PDM D srl, February 2016, Supreme Court case no. 6331-2016

Italy vs PDM D srl, February 2016, Supreme Court case no. 6331-2016

This case is about deduction of certain “cost” related to sale of property and intragroup financing between an Italian company and a related group company in Luxembourg. Judgment of the Supreme Court The Court ruled partly in favour of the tax authorities and partly in favour of the PDM D srl. I regards to the deduction of the “guarantee” granted in relation to the sale of real estate the Court states: “In the present case, in the absence of proof of the above requirements in the reference financial year (2005/2006), and since the costs in question have not yet been actually incurred, but are future costs that may be incurred in subsequent financial years, following a comparison between the amount actually received from the leases and the fixed amount guaranteed by the seller company and therefore depending on the actual development of the lease relationship, the tax recovery is legitimate. ” In regards to the arm’s length nature of the ... Read more
Netherlands vs. Corp, March 2013, Supreme Court, Case no. 11/01985

Netherlands vs. Corp, March 2013, Supreme Court, Case no. 11/01985

X BV  jointly participated in a third party credit arrangement with other group companies. X BV was jointly and severally liable for all the receivables that the creditor had on the other group companies under the credit arrangement, and the recourse (of X BV against the other group companies) that arose from such joint and several liability could not be claimed until the full amount outstanding under the credit arrangement had been repaid. The Supreme Court found that it could be assumed that a third party would not be willing to provide a guarantee only if, at the moment of granting the guarantee, no guarantee fee could be determined. The Supreme Court found that the cross guarantee was an arrangement that originated from shareholder interests. Hence a credit loss resulting from a cross-guarantee agreement was not deductible for tax purposes. Click here for translation Netherland-vs-Corp-March-2013-Supreme-Court-Case-no-11-01985 ... Read more
Canada vs. McKesson. October 2012. Tax Court

Canada vs. McKesson. October 2012. Tax Court

McKesson is a multinational group involved in wholesale distribution of pharmaceuticals. Its Canadian subsidiary entered into a receivables sales (factoring) agreement with its direct parent, McKesson International Holdings III Sarl in Luxembourg in 2002. Under the agreement, McKesson International Holdings III Sarl agreed to purchase the receivables for about C$460 million and committed to purchasing all the eligible receivables as they arose for the next five years. The price of the receivables was determined at a discount of 2.206 percent from the face amount. The funding to buy the receivables was borrowed in Canadian dollars from an indirect parent company of McKesson International Holdings III Sarl in Ireland and guaranteed by another indirect parent in Luxembourg. The Court didn’t recharacterize the transactions. The Court emphasized that the Canadian Income Tax Act was the only legally binding clause on appeal before the court and that the practice of the CRA under the OECD guidelines was irrelevant. This case recognizes the need to consider other factors (for example, a series ... Read more
Finland vs. Corp. November 2010, Supreme Administrative Court HFD 2010:73

Finland vs. Corp. November 2010, Supreme Administrative Court HFD 2010:73

A company, which belonged to a Nordic group, had until August 2005, two loans with an independent party outside the group. The interest of the loans was 3.135 to 3.25 percent. The company’s long-term loans amounted to over EUR 36 million and the guarantees granted by the Company for its loans amounted to about 41 million. In August 2005 the financing of the entire group was re organised. A Ltd paid off old bank loans and took up a new loan from the Swedish company B AB, which belonged to the group. For loans between the group companies was 9.5 percent interest rate. The interest rate had been affected by interest rate percentages on unrelated loans , risk loans and loans from shareholders. After the change in funding A Ltd’s long-term debt totaled just over EUR 38 million and the guarantees granted by the Company for the group was around 300 million euros. A Ltd’s capital structure was not affected ... 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