Tag: Interest deduction

UK vs Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited and Irish Nationwide Building Society, October 2019, UK Upper Tribunal, UKUT 0277 (TCC)

UK vs Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited and Irish Nationwide Building Society, October 2019, UK Upper Tribunal, UKUT 0277 (TCC)

This case concerned deductibility of notional interest paid in 2003-7 by two permanent establishments in the UK to their Irish HQs. The loans – and thus interest expenses – had been allocated to the PEs as if they were separate entities. The UK tax authorities held that interest deductibility was restricted by UK tax law, which prescribed that PE’s has such equity and loan capital as it could reasonably be expected to have as a separate entity. The UK taxpayers, refered to  Article 8 of the UK-Ireland tax treaty. Article 8 applied the “distinct and separate enterprise” principle found in Article 7 of the 1963 OECD Model Tax Convention, which used the language used in section 11AA(2). Yet nothing was said in the treaty about assumed levels of equity and debt funding for the PE. In 2017, the First-tier Tribunal found in favour of the tax authority, and in October 2019 the Upper Tribunal also dismissed the taxpayers’ appeals. Irish_Nationwide_Building_Society_and_anor_v_HMRC ... Continue to full case
France, Public Statement related to deduction of interest payments to a Belgian group company, BOI-RES-000041-20190904

France, Public Statement related to deduction of interest payments to a Belgian group company, BOI-RES-000041-20190904

In a public statement the French General Directorate of Public Finance clarified that tax treatment of interest deductions taken by a French company on interest payments to a related Belgian company that benefits from the Belgian notional interest rate scheme. According to French Law, interest paid to foreign group companies is only deductible if a minimum rate of tax applies to the relevant income abroad. Click here for translation BOI-RES-000041-20190904 ... Continue to full case
Portugal vs Galeria Parque Nascente-Exploração de Espaços Comerciais SA, July 2019, ECJ Case C-438/18

Portugal vs Galeria Parque Nascente-Exploração de Espaços Comerciais SA, July 2019, ECJ Case C-438/18

The Portuguese Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa) requested a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice. The request related to the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, partial divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States — Directive 90/434/EEC — Articles 4 and 11 — Directive 2009/133/EC — Articles 4 and 15 — So-called ‘reverse’ merger In the event of a ‘reverse’ merger, costs which are incurred by the parent company relating to a loan taken out by that parent company for the purchase of shares of the subsidiary and which are deductible for that parent company, are considered non-deductible for that subsidiary. Click here for translation Portugal vs Galeria Parque Nascente-Exploração de Espaços Comerciais SA ... Continue to full case
New Zealand vs Frucor Suntory, November 2018, High Court, Case No NZHC 2860

New Zealand vs Frucor Suntory, November 2018, High Court, Case No NZHC 2860

This case concerns application of the general anti-avoidance rule in s BG 1 of the Income Tax Act 2004. The tax authorities issued an assessment where deductions of $10,827,606 and $11,665,323 were disallowed in the 2006 and 2007 income tax years respectively. In addition, penalties of $1,786,555 and $1,924,779 for those years were imposed. The claimed deductions arose in the context of an arrangement entered into by Frucor Holdings Ltd (FHNZ) involving, among other steps, its issue of a Convertible Note to Deutsche Bank, New Zealand Branch (DBNZ) and a forward purchase of the shares DBNZ could call for under the Note by FHNZ’s Singapore based parent Danone Asia Pte Ltd (DAP). The Note had a face value of $204,421,5654 and carried interest at a rate of 6.5 per cent per annum. Over its five-year life, FHNZ paid DBNZ approximately $66 million which FHNZ characterised as interest and deducted for income tax purposes. The tax authorities said that, although such ... Continue to full case
Sweden vs S BV, 16 June 2017, Administrative Court, case number 2385-2390-16

Sweden vs S BV, 16 June 2017, Administrative Court, case number 2385-2390-16

S BV was not granted deductions in its Swedish PE for interest on debt relating to the acquisition of subsidiaries. The Court of Appeal considers that it is clear that key personnel regarding acquisition, financing and divestment of the shares in the subsidiary and the associated risks have not existed in the PE. It is also very likely that the holding of the shares has not been necessary for and conditioned by the PE’s operations. Therefore, there is no support for allocating the shares and the related debt to the PE. Click here for translation Sweden vs Corp 30 June 2017 KRNS, mål nr 2385—2390-16 ... Continue to full case
Norway vs. IKEA Handel og Ejendom, October 2016, HRD 2016-722

Norway vs. IKEA Handel og Ejendom, October 2016, HRD 2016-722

In 2007, IKEA reorganised its property portfolio in Norway so that the properties were demerged from the Norwegian parent company and placed in new, separate companies. The shares in these companies were placed in a newly established property company, and the shares in this company were in turn sold to the original parent company, which then became an indirect owner of the same properties. The last acquisition was funded through an inter-company loan. Based on the non-statutory anti-avoidance rule in Norwegian Tax Law, the Supreme Court concluded that the parent company could not be allowed to deduct the interest on the inter-company loan, as the main purpose of the reorganisation was considered to be to save tax. The anti-avoidance rule in section 13-1 of the Tax Act did not apply in this circumstance. Click here for translation Norway vs IKEA-Handel-og-Ejendom-HRD-2016-722 ... Continue to full case
Germany vs. Corp. November 2015, Supreme Tax Court judgment I R 57/13

Germany vs. Corp. November 2015, Supreme Tax Court judgment I R 57/13

The Supreme Tax Court held – contrary to the finance ministry interest limitation decree – that the exception for interest payments to a significant shareholder of not more 10% of the company’s total borrowing cost applies separately for each shareholder, rather than to all significant shareholders cumulatively. There are a number of exceptions to the interest limitation rule essentially limiting the annual interest deduction to 30% of EBITDA as shown in the accounts. One of these is the equity ratio rule exempting a subsidiary company from the interest limitation provided its equity ratio (ratio of shareholder’s equity to the balance sheet total) is no more than two percentage points lower than that of the group and no more than 10% of its net interest cost was paid to any one significant shareholder (a shareholder owning more than 25% of the share capital). A loss-making company paying slightly less than 10% of its total net interest cost to each of two ... Continue to full case
Germany vs. Corp. October 2015, Supreme Tax Court decision I R 20/15

Germany vs. Corp. October 2015, Supreme Tax Court decision I R 20/15

The Supreme Tax Court has requested the Constitutional Court to rule on the conformity of the interest limitation with the constitutional requirement to tax like circumstances alike. The interest limitation disallows net interest expense in excess of 30% of EBITDA. However, the rule does not apply to companies with a total net annual interest cost of no more than €3 m or to those that are not part of a group. There are also a number of other exemptions, but the overall effect is to render the actual impact somewhat arbitrary. In particular, the asserted purpose of the rule – prevention of profit shifts abroad through deliberate under-capitalisation of the German operation – seemed somewhat illusory to the Supreme Tax Court in the light of the relatively high threshold and of the indiscriminate application to cases without foreign connotations. The court also pointed out that interest, as such, is a legitimate business expense and that the limitation rule can penalise ... Continue to full case
South Africa vs MTN International Ltd (Mauritius), Marts 2014, Supreme Court of Appeal, Case No. 275/2013 [2014] ZASCA 8

South Africa vs MTN International Ltd (Mauritius), Marts 2014, Supreme Court of Appeal, Case No. 275/2013 [2014] ZASCA 8

The issue before the Supreme Court of Appeal was whether a tax assessment issued by the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (SARS), in terms of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962, for the year 2006 were to be set aside. MTN International Ltd had claimed interest deductions on loans it had incurred as expenditure against its gross income for the year of assessment. On 31 March 2011, which was the last day before the original assessment by SARS was due to prescribe, SARS issued a revised assessment, disallowing deduction of the interest expenditure. The tax assessment resulted in an income tax liability of R 73.476.101 of MTN International Ltd. When issuing the tax assessment the officer at SARS manually fixed the ‘due date’ as 30 March 2011, being one day prior to the day on which the assessment was actually issued. MTN International Ltd applied the High Court to have the tax assessment set aside, on the ... Continue to full case
South Africa vs. NWK LtD, Dec. 2010, Supreme Court of Appeal, Case No. 27/10

South Africa vs. NWK LtD, Dec. 2010, Supreme Court of Appeal, Case No. 27/10

Over a period of five years, from 1999 to 2003, the respondent, NWK Ltd, claimed deductions from income tax in respect of interest paid on a loan to it by Slab Trading Company (Pty) Ltd (Slab), a subsidiary of First National Bank (FNB), in the sum of R 96.415.776. The deductions were allowed. But in 2003 the appellant, the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service, issued new assessments disallowing the deductions and refusing to remit any part of the interest on the amounts assessed. He also imposed additional tax and interest in terms of ss 76 and 89quat of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962. The amount claimed pursuant to the additional assessments, including additional tax, was R 47.360.583. The basis of the revised assessments by the Commissioner was that the loan was not a genuine contract: it was part of a series of transactions entered into between NWK and FNB and its subsidiaries, all designed to disguise ... Continue to full case
Belgium vs Lammers & Van Cleeff, January 2008, European Court of Justice, Case No. C-105/07

Belgium vs Lammers & Van Cleeff, January 2008, European Court of Justice, Case No. C-105/07

The question in this case, was whether EU community law precluded Belgien statutory rules under which interest payments were reclassified as dividends, and thus taxable, if made to a foreign shareholder company. A Belgian subsidiary was established and the two shareholders of the Belgian subsidiary and the parent company, established in the Netherlands, were appointed as directors. The subsidiary paid interest to the parent which was considered by the Belgian tax authorities in part to be dividends and was assessed as such. The European Court of Justice was asked to rule on the compatibility of these Belgien statutory rules with EU Community law The Court ruled that art. 43 and 48 EC precluded national legislation under which interest payments made by a company resident in a member state to a director which was a company established in another member state were reclassified as taxable dividends, where, at the beginning of the taxable period, the total of the interest-bearing loans was higher ... Continue to full case
Canada vs Univar Canada Ltd., November 2005, Tax Court of Canada, Case No 2005 TCC 723

Canada vs Univar Canada Ltd., November 2005, Tax Court of Canada, Case No 2005 TCC 723

The CRA had issued a six assessments for fiscal years 1995-1999 based on the principle purpose of Univar's acquisition of shares of Van Waters & Rogers (Barbadosco) Ltd. being to permit Univar to avoid, reduce or defer the payment of tax that would otherwise be payable under the Act within the meaning of paragraph 95(6), and thus deemed not to have been acquired . "ITA 95(6) Where rights or shares issued, acquired or disposed of to avoid tax – For the purposes of this subdivision (other than section 90), (b) where a person or partnership acquires or disposes of shares of the capital stock of a corporation, either directly or indirectly, and it can reasonably be considered that the principal purpose for the acquisition or disposition of the shares is to permit a person to avoid, reduce or defer the payment of tax or any other amount that would otherwise be payable under this Act, those shares shall be deemed ... Continue to full case
The Netherlands vs X BV, February 2004, Appellate Court of Amsterdam V-N 2004/39.9.

The Netherlands vs X BV, February 2004, Appellate Court of Amsterdam V-N 2004/39.9.

X BV, is member of the English XX-group. One of X’s parents is XX Ltd., based in the United Kingdom. In 1992, X BV acquired licensing rights relating to the trade name J from J Ltd. Their value was determined to be GBP 19.2 million. According to the agreement, X BV paid GBP 19 million for the ten-year economic ownership of the licensing rights. J Ltd. sold the legal ownership to W BV for GBP 200,000 in which X BV owned all shares. In 1996, X BV sells the ten-year economic ownership to W BV for GBP 2 million. To support the GBP 19 million price for the economic ownership, a valuation report is drawn up in 1992. The valuation is based on “projected royalty streams” which showed increasing royalty streams over the ten-year period 1992-2002. The tax authorities disagrees with the price of GBP 19 mio. and argue that the total value of the brand was GBP 43 mio ... Continue to full case