Tag: Interest

India vs TMW, August 2019, Income Tax Tribunal, Case No ITA No 879

India vs TMW, August 2019, Income Tax Tribunal, Case No ITA No 879

The facts in brief are that TMW ASPF CYPRUS (hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’) is a private limited company incorporated in Cyprus and is engaged in the business of making investments in the real estate sector. The company in the year 2008 had made investments in independent third-party companies in India (hereinafter collectively known as ‘investee companies’) engaged in real estate development vide fully convertible debentures (FCCDs). It was these investments that made the investee companies an associated enterprise of the assessee as per TP provisions. The assessee had also entered agreements, according to which the assessee was entitled to a coupon rate of 4%. Further, after the conversion of the FCCDs into equity shares, the promoter of Indian Companies would buy back at an agreed option price. The option price would be such that the investor gets the original investment paid on subscription to the FCCDs plus a return of 18% per annum. During the impugned assessment year, the ... Continue to full case
UK vs Oxford Instruments Ltd, April 2019, First-tier Tribunal, Case No. [2019] UKFTT 254 (TC)

UK vs Oxford Instruments Ltd, April 2019, First-tier Tribunal, Case No. [2019] UKFTT 254 (TC)

At issue in this case was UK loan relationship rules – whether a note issued as part of a structure for refinancing the US sub-group without generating net taxable interest income in the UK had an unallowable purpose and the extent of deductions referable to the unallowable purpose considered. The Court ruled in favor of the tax administration: “Did the $140m Promissory Note secure a tax advantage? 110.     In my view, the $140m Promissory Note secured a tax advantage for OIOH 2008 Ltd in that all of the interest arising in respect of the note (apart from 25% of the interest on $94m of the principal amount of the note) was set off against the taxable income of OIOH 2008 Ltd.  Those interest deductions were accordingly a “relief from tax” falling within Section 1139(2)(a) of the CTA 2010. 111.     I consider that that would be the case even if I had accepted Mr Ghosh’s submission to the effect that, because the Scheme ... Continue to full case
Netherlands vs NL PE, October 2018, Amsterdam Court of Appeal, case no. 17/00407 to 17/00410

Netherlands vs NL PE, October 2018, Amsterdam Court of Appeal, case no. 17/00407 to 17/00410

The issue in this case was attribution of profits to a permanent establishment in the Netherlands. Click here for translation ECLI_NL_GHAMS_2018_2438, Gerechtshof Amsterdam, 17_00407 tm 17_00410N ... Continue to full case
Australia vs Chevron, 21 April 2017, Federal Court 2017 FCAFC 62

Australia vs Chevron, 21 April 2017, Federal Court 2017 FCAFC 62

This case was about a cross border financing arrangement used by Chevron Australia to reduce it’s taxes – a round robin. 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. The loan increased Chevron Australia’s costs and reduced taxable profits. The 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. Australian Courts ruled in favor of the tax administration and the case was since appealed by Chevron. In April 2017 the Federal Court decided to dismiss Chevron’s appeal. Australia vs Chevron 2017 Federal Court, 2017 FCAFC 62 Following the decision from the Federal Court Chevron Australia issued an appeal to the High ... Continue to full case
Sweden vs. Nobel Biocare Holding AB, HFD 2016 ref. 45

Sweden vs. Nobel Biocare Holding AB, HFD 2016 ref. 45

In January 2003, a Swedish company, Nobel Biocare Holding AB, entered into three loan agreements with its Swiss parent company. The loans had 15, 25 and 30 maturity respectively, with terms of amortization and with a variable interest rate corresponding to Stibor plus an interest rate margin of 1.75 percent points for one of the loans and 1.5 percent points for the other two loans. The same day the parent company transfered the loans to a sister company domiciled in the Netherlands Antilles. In June 2008 new loan agreements was signed. The new agreements lacked maturity and amortization and interest rates were stated in accordance with the Group’s monthly fixed interest rates. Amortization continued to take place in accordance with the provisions of the 2003 agreement, and the only actual change in relation to those agreements consisted in raising the interest rates by 2.5 percent points. These loans were transferred to a Swiss sister company. The Swedish Tax administration denied tax deductions corresponding to the difference between ... Continue to full case
Denmark vs. Swiss Re. February 2012, Supreme Court, SKM2012.92

Denmark vs. Swiss Re. February 2012, Supreme Court, SKM2012.92

This case concerned the Danish company, Swiss Re, Copenhagen Holding ApS, which was wholly owned by the US company, ERC Life Reinsurance Corporation. In 1999 the group considered transferring the German subsidiary, ERC Frankona Reinsurance Holding GmbH, from the US parent company to the Danish company. The value of the German company was determined to be DKK 7.8 billion. The purchase price was to be settled by the Danish Company issuing shares with a market value of DKK 4.2 billion and debt with a market value of DKK 3.6 billion. On 27 May 1999, the parent company and the Danish company considered to structure the debt as a subordinated, zero-coupon note. Compensation for the loan would be structured as a built-in capital gain in order to defer recognition of the compensation for the period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000. The Danish company would be unable to use a deduction in income year 1999. A built-in capital gain should ... Continue to full case
US vs Laidlaw Transportation, Inc., June 1998, US Tax Court, Case No 75 T.C.M. 2598 (1998)

US vs Laidlaw Transportation, Inc., June 1998, US Tax Court, Case No 75 T.C.M. 2598 (1998)

Conclusion of the Tax Court: “The substance of the transactions is revealed in the lack of arm’s-length dealing between LIIBV and petitioners, the circular flow of funds, and the conduct of the parties by changing the terms of the agreements when needed to avoid deadlines. The Laidlaw entities’ core management group designed and implemented this elaborate system to create the appearance that petitioners were paying interest, while in substance they were not. We conclude that, for Federal income tax purposes, the advances from LIIBV to petitioners for which petitioners claim to have paid the interest at issue are equity and not debt. Thus, petitioners may not deduct the interest at issue for 1986, 1987, and 1988.” NOTE: 13 October 2016 section 385 of the Internal Revenue Code was issued containing regulations for re-characterisation of Debt/Equity for US Inbound Multinationals. Further, US documentation rules in Treasury Regulation § 1.385-2 facilitate analysis of related-party debt instruments by establishing documentation and maintenance requirements, operating ... Continue to full case