Tag: Implicit support/guarantee

Implicit support refers to the fact that the credit rating of a company that is part of a MNE group may be higher (and interest rate therefor lower) than it would be if it was a stand-alone company, if a bank or rating agency believes that associated enterprises would support the company in a period of financial stress even in the absence of an explicit guarantee.

Germany vs A Investment GmbH, June 2017, Cologne Fiscal Court , Case no 10 K 771/16

Germany vs A Investment GmbH, June 2017, Cologne Fiscal Court , Case no 10 K 771/16

A Investment GmbH, acquired all shares of B in May 2012. To finance the acquisition, A Investment GmbH took up a bank loan with a interest rate of 4.78%, a vendor loan with an interest rate of 10% and a shareholder loan with an interest rate 8% from its parent company, Capital B.V. The 8 % interest rate on the shareholder loan was determined by A Investment GmbH by applying the CUP method based on external comparables. The German tax authority, found that the interest rate of 8 % did not comply with the arm’s length principle. An assessment was issued where the interest rate was set to 5% based on the interest rate on the bank loan (internal CUP). A Investment GmbH filed an appeal to Cologne Fiscal Court. The court ruled that the interest rate of the bank loan, 4.78%, was a reliable CUP for setting the arm’s length interest rate of the controlled loan. The vendor loan was ... Continue to full case
Germany vs X Sub GmbH, December 2016, Münster Fiscal Court, Case No 13 K 4037/13 K,F

Germany vs X Sub GmbH, December 2016, Münster Fiscal Court, Case No 13 K 4037/13 K,F

X Sub GmbH is a German subsidiary of a multinational group. The parent company Y Par B.V. and the financial hub of the group Z Fin B.V. – a sister company to the German subsidiary – are both located in the Netherlands. In its function as a financial hub, Z Fin B.V granted several loans to X Sub GmbH. As part of a tax audit, the German tax authority considered that the interest on the inter-company loans paid by X Sub GmbH to Z Fin B.V. was too high. In order to determine the arm’s length interest rate, X Sub GmbH had applied the CUP method. The tax authority instead applied the cost plus method and issued an assessment. X Sub GmbH filed an appeal to Münster Fiscal Court. The Court found that the cost plus method was justly chosen by the tax authority, as the external CUPs could not be used because of differences in conditions between the uncontrolled ... Continue to full case
Australia vs. Chevron Australia Holdings Pty Ltd . October 2015, Federal Court of Australia, case No. 3 and 4

Australia vs. Chevron Australia Holdings Pty Ltd . October 2015, Federal Court of Australia, case No. 3 and 4

The Australien Chevron case was about a $US 2.5 billion intercompany loan between Chevron Australia and its US subsidiary, Chevron Texaco, and whether the interest paid on the loan by Chevron Australia exceeded the arm’s length price. Chevron Australia had set up a company in the US, Chevron Texaco Funding Corporation, which borrowed money in US dollars at an interest rate of 1.2% and then made an Australian dollar loan at 8.9% to the Australian parent company. This 8,9% interest increased Chevron Australia’s costs, and reduced taxable profits. These interest payments, which was not taxed in the US, came back to Australia in the form of tax free dividends. The US company was just a shell created for the sole purpose of raising funds in the commercial paper market and then lending those funds to the Australian company. Chevron argued that the 8,9% interest rate was taking into account the risk of raising loans written in US dollars and then turning that into an Australian dollar loan. The Court ruled in favor ... Continue to full case
Portugal vs. Cash Corp, December 2012, Tribunal Case no 55/2012-T

Portugal vs. Cash Corp, December 2012, Tribunal Case no 55/2012-T

This case concerned the 2008 tax year, and the tax-payer was a company resident and incorporated in Portugal and a 100 percent subsidiary of a German company. The tax authorities assessed substantial corporate income tax because of a tax audit. The company claimed that the tax assessment violated the Portuguese transfer pricing regime because the tax authorities assumed that the company had provided a guarantee to its parent company, a related entity. However, according to the company, it could not be said that the subsidiary rendered a guarantee to its parent company under the cash-pooling agreement. The company also argued that the tax authorities were wrong in applying the comparable uncontrolled price method in order to obtain the arm’s-length price under the cash-pooling arrangement. The tax authorities in their answer stated that the contract between the parent and the subsidiary had clauses that deviated from a cash-pooling contract and they believed it should be deemed a mix of different contracts ... Continue to full case
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 ... Continue to full case
Sweden vs. Diligentia, June 2010, Regeringsratten case nr 2483-2485-09

Sweden vs. Diligentia, June 2010, Regeringsratten case nr 2483-2485-09

Diligentia was the parent company of a Group active in real estate. After a take-over of Diligentia by another Group, Skandia Liv, external loans in Diligentia were terminated and replaced with intra-group loans from the new parent company, Skandia Liv. The new loans had an interest rate of 9,5 percent compared to the interest rates before the take over where the average rate was 4,5 percent (STIBOR added with 0,4 percent). Skandia Liv was a life insurance company (tax free under Swedish law) The tax authorities stated that the interest rate level exceeded a marked interest rate level and that the excess rate constituted deemed dividends. The Administrative Court established that an arm‟s length rate can be determined by looking at a wide range of interest rate levels since an interest rate is determined by a number of elements such as the borrower‟s credit worthiness, collateral, term to maturity etc. The court set the interest at 6,5 percent. The Court claimed that the loans should be compared ... Continue to full case