Tag: Limitation On Benefits Provision
Tax treaty provisions designed to restrict treaty-shopping opportunities by limiting treaty benefits to persons who meet one of several enumerated tests, which may require minimum level qualifications, e.g. local ownership.

Denmark vs Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS, March 2021, High Court, Cases B-721-13
/ Anti-avoidance provisions, Beneficial owner, Beneficial Owner, Conduit company, Decision in favor of tax authority, Denmark, Dividends, EU Parent Subsidiary Directive, General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR), Heerema, High Court, Limitation On Benefits Provision, Local anti avoidance, Luxembourg, No commercial purpose or rationale, Panama, Substance over form, Tax avoidance, Tax Avoidance Schemes, Tax Treaty Interpretation, Tax treaty interpretation, Treaty shopping, Withholding tax, withholding tax on dividends
Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS, a subsidiary in the Heerema group, paid dividends to a parent company in Luxembourg which in turn paid the dividends to two group companies in Panama. The tax authorities found that the company in Luxembourg was not the beneficial owner of the dividends and thus the dividends were not covered by the tax exemption rules of the EU Parent/Subsidiary Directive or the Double Taxation Convention between Denmark and Luxembourg. On that basis an assessment was issued regarding payment of withholding tax on the dividends. An appeal was filed by Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS with the High Court. Judgement of the Eastern High Court The court dismissed the appeal of Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS and decided in favor of the tax authorities. The parent company in Luxembourg was a so-called “flow-through” company which was not the beneficial owner of the dividend and thus not covered by the tax exemption rules of the Parent/Subsidiary Directive ... Read more

Denmark vs Takeda A/S and NTC Parent S.a.r.l., November 2021, High Court, Cases B-2942-12 and B-171-13
/ Anti-avoidance provisions, Apax, Beneficial owner, Beneficial Owner, Blackstone, British Virgin Islands, Conduit company, Conduit jurisdictions, Decision in favor of tax authority, Denmark, EU Parent Subsidiary Directive, Financial Transactions, General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR), High Court, Inter-company loan, Interest, Interest and royalty directive, Limitation On Benefits Provision, Local anti avoidance, Luxembourg, No commercial purpose or rationale, Nycomed, Providence, Substance over form, Tax avoidance, Tax Avoidance Schemes, Tax Treaty Interpretation, Tax treaty interpretation, Treaty shopping, Withholding tax
The issue in these two cases is whether withholding tax was payable on interest paid to foreign group companies considered “beneficial owners” via conduit companies covered by the EU Interest/Royalties Directive and DTA’s exempting the payments from withholding taxes. The first case concerned interest accruals totalling approximately DKK 1,476 million made by a Danish company in the period 2007-2009 in favour of its parent company in Sweden in connection with an intra-group loan. The Danish Tax Authorities (SKAT) subsequently ruled that the recipients of the interest were subject to the tax liability in Section 2(1)(d) of the Corporation Tax Act and that the Danish company was therefore obliged to withhold and pay withholding tax on a total of approximately DKK 369 million. The Danish company brought the case before the courts, claiming principally that it was not obliged to withhold the amount collected by SKAT, as it disputed the tax liability of the recipients of the interest attributions. The second ... Read more

Denmark vs NETAPP ApS and TDC A/S, May 2021, High Court, Cases B-1980-12 and B-2173-12
/ Beneficial owner, Beneficial Owner, Bermuda, Conduit company, Conduit jurisdictions, Cyprus, Decision predominantly in favor of tax authority, Denmark, Dividends, EU Parent Subsidiary Directive, General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR), High Court, Limitation On Benefits Provision, Local anti avoidance, Luxembourg, Substance over form, Tax avoidance, Tax Avoidance Schemes, Tax Treaty Interpretation, Tax treaty interpretation, Treaty shopping, Withholding tax
On 3 May 2021, the Danish High Court ruled in two “beneficial owner” cases concerning the question of whether withholding tax must be paid on dividends distributed by Danish subsidiaries to foreign parent companies. The first case – NETAPP Denmark ApS – concerned two dividend distributions of approx. 566 million DKK and approx. 92 million made in 2005 and 2006 by a Danish company to its parent company in Cyprus. The National Tax Court had upheld the Danish company in that the dividends were exempt from withholding tax pursuant to the Corporation Tax Act, section 2, subsection. 1, letter c, so that the company was not obliged to pay withholding tax. The Ministry of Taxation brought the case before the courts, claiming that the Danish company should include – and thus pay – withholding tax of a total of approx. 184 million kr. The second case – TDC A/S – concerned the National Tax Tribunal’s binding answer to two questions ... Read more