Tag: Loan guarantee

Poland vs A. Sp. z o. o., February 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 1475/19

Poland vs A. Sp. z o. o., February 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 1475/19

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

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.188

The accurate delineation of the actual transaction indicates that the enhancement of Company D’s credit standing from A to AAA is attributable to a deliberate concerted group action, i.e. the guarantee provided by Company M. Company D would be expected to be willing to pay an arm’s length guarantee fee to Company M for the provision of the explicit guarantee since Company D is better off than in the absence of the guarantee ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.187

Consider the same fact pattern as described in Example 1, but in this case assume that under the guidance in Section D.2, comparable uncontrolled transactions can be identified showing that the arm’s length price of a comparable guarantee would be in the range of 1% to 1.5% ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.186

In that situation, the analysis under Chapter I may indicate that an independent enterprise borrowing under the same conditions as Company D would not be expected to pay a guarantee fee of 3% to Company M for the provision of the explicit guarantee since Company D is better off in the absence of the guarantee ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.185

Assume that the accurate delineation of the actual transaction shows that the effect of passive association raises Company D’s credit standing from BBB to A, and that the provision of the explicit guarantee additionally enhances the credit standing of Company D to AAA. Assume further that independent lenders charge an interest rate of 8% to entities with a credit rating of A, and of 6% to entities with a credit rating of AAA. Assume further that Company M charges Company D a fee of 3% for the provision of the guarantee so the guarantee fee more than completely offsets the benefit of Company D’s enhanced credit standing derived from the provision of such guarantee ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.184

Company M, the parent entity of an MNE group, maintains an AAA credit rating based on the strength of the MNE group’s consolidated balance sheet. Company D, a member of the same MNE group, has a credit rating of only BBB on a stand-alone basis, and needs to borrow EUR 10 million from an independent lender ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.182

The capital support method may be suitable where the difference between the guarantor’s and borrower’s risk profiles could be addressed by introducing more capital to the borrower’s balance sheet. It would be first necessary to determine the credit rating for the borrower without the guarantee (but with implicit support) and then to identify the amount of additional notional capital required to bring the borrower up to the credit rating of the guarantor. The guarantee could then be priced based on an expected return on this amount of capital to the extent that the expected return so used appropriately reflects only the results or consequences of the provision of the guarantee rather than the overall activities of the guarantor- enterprise ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.181

The valuation of expected loss method would estimate the value of a guarantee on the basis of calculating the probability of default and making adjustments to account for the expected recovery rate in the event of default. This would then be applied to the nominal amount guaranteed to arrive at a cost of providing the guarantee. The guarantee could then be priced based on an expected return on this amount of capital based on commercial pricing models such as the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.180

Pricing under each model will be sensitive to the assumptions made in the modelling process. Whatever valuation model is used, the evaluation of cost method sets a minimum fee for the guarantee (the minimum amount that the provider of the guarantee will be willing to accept) and does not of itself necessarily reflect the outcome of a bargain made at arm’s length. The arm’s length amount should be derived from a consideration of the perspectives (taking into account options realistically available) of the borrower and guarantor ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.179

There are a number of possible models for estimating the expected loss and capital requirement. Popular pricing models for this approach work on the premise that financial guarantees are equivalent to another financial instrument and pricing the alternative, for example, treating the guarantee as a put option and using option pricing models, credit default swap pricing models, etc. For instance, publicly available data of credit default swaps spreads may be used to approximate the default risk associated to the borrowing and, therefore, the guarantee fee. When using this type of data, the identification of the default event (e.g. bankruptcy) is central to the comparability analysis between the controlled transaction and the potentially comparable credit default swap (See Section C.1.2, on the reliability of credit default swap data) ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.178

This method aims to quantify the additional risk borne by the guarantor by estimating the value of the expected loss that the guarantor incurs by providing the guarantee (loss given default). Alternatively the expected cost could be determined by reference to the capital required to support the risks assumed by the guarantor ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.177

The result of this analysis sets a maximum fee for the guarantee (the maximum amount that the recipient of the guarantee will be willing to pay), namely, the difference between the interest rate with the guarantee and the interest rate without the guarantee but with the benefit of implicit support (and taking into account any costs). The borrower would have no incentive to enter into the guarantee arrangement if, in total, it pays the same to the bank in interest and to the guarantor in fees as it would have paid to the bank in interest without the guarantee. Therefore this maximum fee does not of itself necessarily reflect the outcome of a bargain made at arm’s length but represents the maximum that the borrower would be prepared to pay ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.176

The benefit of implicit support will be the difference between the borrowing terms attainable by the borrowing entity based on its credit rating as a member of the MNE group and those attainable on the basis of the stand-alone credit rating it would have had if it were an entirely unaffiliated enterprise. If the borrower has its own independent credit rating from an unrelated credit rating agency, this will usually reflect its membership of the MNE group and so ordinarily no adjustment would be needed to this credit rating to reflect implicit support ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.175

The next step would be to determine, by a similar process (unless directly observable in the case of a loan from a third party), the interest rate payable with the benefit of the explicit guarantee. The interest spread can be used in quantifying the benefit gained by the borrower as a result of the guarantee. In determining the extent of the benefit provided by the guarantee, it is important to distinguish the impact of an explicit guarantee from the effects of any implicit support as a result of group membership. See Example 2 at paragraph 1.187. The benefit to be priced is not the difference between the cost to the unguaranteed borrower on a stand-alone basis and the cost with the explicit guarantee but the difference between the cost to the borrower after taking into account the benefit of any implicit support and the cost with the benefit of the explicit guarantee ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.174

This approach quantifies the benefit that the guaranteed party receives from the guarantee in terms of lower interest rates. The method calculates the spread between the interest rate that would have been payable by the borrower without the guarantee and the interest rate payable with the guarantee. The first step is to determine the interest rate that would have been payable by the borrower on its own merits, taking into account the impact of implicit support as a result of its group membership. See Section C.1.2 ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.173

An independent entity providing a financial guarantee would expect to receive a fee to compensate it for the risk it is taking in accepting the contingent liability and to reflect any value it is providing to the borrower in respect of the guarantee. However, it must be borne in mind that an independent guarantor’s charges will in part reflect costs incurred in the process of raising capital and in satisfying regulatory requirements. Those are costs which associated enterprises might not incur ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.172

The difficulty with using the CUP method is that publicly available information about a sufficiently similar credit enhancing guarantee is unlikely to be found between unrelated parties given that unrelated party guarantees of bank loans are uncommon ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.171

In considering whether controlled and uncontrolled transactions are comparable, regard should be had to all the factors which may affect the guarantee fee including: the risk profile of the borrower, terms and conditions of the guarantee, term and conditions of the underlying loan (amount, currency, maturity, seniority etc.), credit rating differential between guarantor and guaranteed party, market conditions, etc. When available, uncontrolled guarantees are the most reliable comparable to determine arm’s length guarantee fees ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.170

The CUP method could be used where there are external or internal comparables; independent guarantors providing guarantees in respect of comparable loans to other borrowers or where the same borrower has other comparable loans which are independently guaranteed ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.169

This section describes a number of pricing approaches for those circumstances where a guarantee is found to be appropriate. However, when the accurate delineation of the actual transaction indicates that the purported guarantee is not a guarantee, other pricing approaches should be considered, in particular the guidance in Chapter VII. As in any other transfer pricing situation, the selection of the most appropriate method should be consistent with the actual transaction as accurately delineated, in particular, through a functional analysis. (See Chapter II) ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.168

Likewise, the financial capacity of the guarantor to meet its obligations requires an analysis of the correlation between the guarantor’s and borrower’s businesses. In situations where the guarantor and the borrower operate under similar market conditions, an adverse market event that affects the performance of the borrower and increases its risk of default might also affect the guarantor and its capacity to fulfill its obligations ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.167

A lender would benefit from the stronger credit rating of the guarantor (compared to the borrower’s credit rating) and/or the guarantor’s asset pool (in addition to the borrower’s asset pool), and the borrower accordingly may expect a benefit in the form of a lower interest rate. Thus, based on facts and circumstances, a guarantee may provide a benefit to the borrower that has the same or higher credit rating as the guarantor, if the guarantee effectively allows the lender to access wider recourse and, therefore, reduces the interest rate despite the guarantor not having a higher credit rating. In determining the credit rating of the guarantor and the borrower, the effect of implicit support must be considered as explained in Section C.1.1 ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.166

The examination of financial guarantees under accurate delineation needs also to consider the financial capacity of the guarantor to fulfill its obligations in case of default of the borrower. This requires an evaluation of the credit rating of the guarantor and the borrower, and of the business correlations between them ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.164

A borrower would not generally be prepared to pay for a guarantee if it did not expect to obtain an appropriate benefit in return. Even an explicit guarantee will not necessarily confer a benefit on the borrower; for example, banking covenants applicable to a parent or other MNE group member’s debt facilities can include the default of another MNE group member as an event that may cause the termination of a facility or other adverse consequences. Other legal, financial or operational ties may mean that it would not be possible to abandon the borrower if it encounters financial difficulty without the MNE group suffering a credit rating downgrade. Any of these circumstances may produce the practical result that MNE group members are financially interdependent quite apart from any formal guarantee arrangement, so that the economic risk of the guarantor may not change materially on it giving an explicit guarantee. In other words, the formal guarantee may represent nothing more than ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.162

This section elaborates on the effect of group membership on determining the arm’s length price of financial guarantees, building upon the principles laid out in Section C.1.1 ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.161

Where the effect of a guarantee is to permit a borrower to borrow a greater amount of debt than it could in the absence of the guarantee, the guarantee is not simply supporting the credit rating of the borrower but could be acting both to increase the borrowing capacity and to reduce the interest rate on any existing borrowing capacity of the borrower. In such a situation there may be two issues – whether a portion of the loan from the lender to the borrower is accurately delineated as a loan from the lender to the guarantor (followed by an equity contribution from the guarantor to the borrower), and whether the guarantee fee paid with respect to the portion of the loan that is respected as a loan from the lender to the borrower is arm’s length. The conclusion of an analysis of such transactions may be, taking into account the full facts and circumstances, that the evaluation of the ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.160

Alternatively, Chapter I analysis may indicate that the purported financial guarantee is not providing any benefit to the borrower but merely recognising the benefit that the guaranteed party would have obtained in any case by being part of the MNE group. In such situations, based on facts and circumstances, an unrelated enterprise in comparable circumstances would be unwilling to pay for the provision of a financial guarantee, and the guarantor would be found as providing no more than an administrative service to the borrower (see paragraph 10.164 and guidance in Chapter VII) ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.159

Where the effect of an intra-group guarantee as accurately delineated is to reduce the cost of debt-funding for the borrower, it might be prepared to pay for that guarantee, provided it was in no worse a position overall. In considering the borrower’s overall financial position as a result of the guarantee, its cost of borrowing with the guarantee (including the cost of the guarantee and any associated costs of arranging the guarantee) would be measured against its non-guaranteed cost of borrowing, taking into account any implicit support. Borrowing with a guarantee might also affect terms and conditions of the loan other than price; each case will depend on its own facts and circumstances ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.158

From the perspective of a lender, the consequence of one or more explicit guarantees is that the guarantor(s) are legally committed; the lender’s risk would be expected to be reduced by having access to the assets of the guarantor(s) in the event of the borrower’s default. Effectively, this may mean that the guarantee allows the borrower to borrow on the terms that would be applicable if it had the credit rating of the guarantor rather than the terms it could obtain based on its own, non-guaranteed, rating. The principles and methodologies of pricing a guarantee in these circumstances are similar to those explained for loan pricing in Section C.1.2 ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.157

From the borrower perspective, a financial guarantee may affect the terms of the borrowing – for instance, the existence of a guarantee may allow the guaranteed party to obtain a more favourable interest rate since the lender has access to a wider pool of assets –, or the amount of the borrowing – for instance, enabling the borrower to access a larger amount of funds ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.156

The accurate delineation of financial guarantees requires initial consideration of the economic benefit arising to the borrower beyond the one that derives from passive association, as explained in the Section C.1.1.3 ... Read more

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.155

In general, a financial guarantee provides for the guarantor to meet specified financial obligations in the event of a failure to do so by the guaranteed party. There are various terms in use for different types of credit support from one member of an MNE group to another. At one end of the spectrum is the formal written guarantee and at the other is the implied support attributable solely to membership in the MNE group. In the context of this section, a guarantee is a legally binding commitment on the part of the guarantor to assume a specified obligation of the guaranteed debtor if the debtor defaults on that obligation. The situation likely to be encountered most frequently in a transfer pricing context is that in which an associated enterprise (guarantor) provides a guarantee on a loan taken out by another associated enterprise from an unrelated lender ... 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 I paragraph 1.187

The facts relating to S’s credit standing and borrowing power are identical to those in the preceding example. S borrows EUR 50 million from Bank A. The functional analysis suggests that Bank A would lend to S at an interest rate applicable to A rated borrowers without any formal guarantee. However, P agrees to guarantee the loan from Bank A in order to induce Bank A to lend at the interest rate that would be available to AAA rated borrowers. Under these circumstances, S should be required to pay a guarantee fee to P for providing the express guarantee. In calculating an arm’s length guarantee fee, the fee should reflect the benefit of raising S’s credit standing from A to AAA, not the benefit of raising S’s credit standing from Baa to AAA. The enhancement of S’s credit standing from Baa to A is attributable to the group synergy derived purely from passive association in the group which need not ... Read more
Albania vs Energji Ashta sh.p.k., September 2021, High Court, Case No. 00-2021-1426

Albania vs Energji Ashta sh.p.k., September 2021, High Court, Case No. 00-2021-1426

At issue was whether a payments for an intra group loan guarantee was deductible. In 2008 an agreement was concluded between Verbund AG and the former Albanian Ministry of Economy, Trade and Energy, with the object of construction, operation, maintenance and transfer of the project of a new hydropower plant in Ashta. Based on this agreement, the local company Energji Ashta received a loan in the amount of 140 million euros from two Austrian banks. Having no assets to guarantee the loan, the foreign banks have accepted guarantees for the fulfillment of obligations by Energji Ashta from two group companies EVN AG and Verbund AG. The guarantee for Energji Ashta was made against a commission of 2% of the disbursed amount. Following a tax audit Energji Ashta was informed that the commission paid to EVN AG and Verbund AG would not be allowed as a deductible expense. Not agreeing with the above decision Energji Ashta appealed. Judgement of the Supreme ... Read more
Germany vs A... GmbH, March 2021, BUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHT, Case No 2 BvR 1161/19

Germany vs A… GmbH, March 2021, BUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHT, Case No 2 BvR 1161/19

A GmbH provided funding in the form of a clearing account to its Belgian subsidiary. The account was unsecured and carried an interest of 6% p.a. In 2005, A GmbH and the Belgian company agreed on a debt write-off which was deducted for tax purposes. The tax authorities issued an assessment where the write-off was denied as a tax deductible expense. According to the tax authorities, independent third parties would have agreed on some kind of security. The lack thereof was a violation of the arm’s length principle. A GmbH brought the assessment to court. The Federal Fiscal Court (I R 73/16) found the assessment of the tax authorities to be lawful. This decision was then appealed to the Constitutional Court by  A GmbH, alleging violation of the general principle of equality as well as a violation of its fundamental procedural right to the lawful judge. Decision of the Constitutional Court The Federal Constitutional Court decided in favour of A ... Read more
British American Tobacco hit by £902 million tax assessments in the Netherlands

British American Tobacco hit by £902 million tax assessments in the Netherlands

According to the 2018 financial statement, British American Tobacco group has been hit by a £902 million tax assessments in the Netherlands. “The Dutch tax authority has issued a number of assessments on various issues across the years 2003-2016 in relation to various intra-group transactions. The assessments amount to an  aggregate net liability across these periods of £902 million covering tax, interest and penalties. The Group has appealed against the assessments in full. The Group believes that its companies have meritorious defences in law and fact in each of the above matters and intends to pursue each dispute through the judicial system as necessary. The Group does not consider it appropriate to make provision for these amounts nor for any potential further amounts which may be assessed in relation to these matters in subsequent years. While the amounts that may be payable or receivable in relation to tax disputes could be material to the results or cash flows of the Group in the period in ... Read more
US vs SIH Partners LLLP, May 2019, US Third Circuit of Appeal, Case No 18-1862

US vs SIH Partners LLLP, May 2019, US Third Circuit of Appeal, Case No 18-1862

The Third Circuit of Appeal upheld the tax courts prior decision in a $377 million dispute involving the affiliate of a US based commodities trader. The Court found that SIH Partners LLLP, an affiliate of Pennsylvania-based commodities trader Susquehanna International Group LLP, owed taxes on approximately $377 million in additional income. The extra earnings stemmed from a $1.5 billion loan from Bank of America brokerage Merrill Lynch, which was guaranteed by SIH’s subsidiaries in Ireland and the Cayman Islands. The Tax Court’s ruling was based on regulations under Section 956 of the Internal Revenue Code, which states that U.S. shareholders must include their controlled foreign corporations’ applicable earnings, up to the amount of such a loan, in their own income when the foreign units invest in U.S. property. US vs SIH Partners LLLP181862p ... 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
Germany vs "G-Lender GmbH", February 2019, Bundesfinanzhof, Case No IR 81/17

Germany vs “G-Lender GmbH”, February 2019, Bundesfinanzhof, Case No IR 81/17

G-Lender GmbH, owned 50% of Austrian company A GmbH. The remaining 50% of the shares in A GmbH were held by non related shareholders, who at the same time acted as managing directors of A GmbH. G-Lender GmbH granted A GmbH a total of five loans. These loans each carried an interest rate of  5.5% pa. Assets owned by A GmbH  were assigned as collateral. On 22 January 2002 and 16 June 2002, A GmbH made a partial payments on the loans to G-Lender. By a contract dated 9 April 2003, G-Lender GmbH provided a guarantee to an independent bank for a EUR 800,000 loan to A GmbH and at the same time declared subordination of its loan claims against A GmbH. Due to negative development in A GmbH, G-Lender GmbH on 31 December 2003, booked a partial depreciation on the loan in the amount of EUR 312.972. In December 2004 bankruptcy proceedings had been opened on A GmbH and ... Read more
Germany vs "Waiver KG", February 2019, Bundesfinanzhof, Case No I R 51/17

Germany vs “Waiver KG”, February 2019, Bundesfinanzhof, Case No I R 51/17

Waiver KG had an outstanding (non-interest-bearing and unsecured) trade receivable of EUR 2,560,000 from a wholly-owned subsidiary in China related to deliveries made in FY 2004 and 2005. Waiver KG had first issued a partial waiver (EUR 560,000) on the receivable and then a complete waiver in December 2008, after a partial write-down had previously been made in the commercial balance sheet. The initial partial write-down had not been given effect to the taxable income, but in the course of a tax audit Waiver AG requested that the partial write-off be taken into account for tax purposes as well. The tax office refused to do so and instead applied an interest rate of 3% on the outstanding receivable. A complaint was then filed by Waiver KG to the tax court. The tax court issued a decision in favour of Waiver KG with reference to German jurisprudence on the blocking effect of Art. 9 OECD-MA. However, at the same time, the tax ... Read more
Netherlands vs B.V, July 2018, Hoge Raad Case No 17/04930 17/05713 17/05714

Netherlands vs B.V, July 2018, Hoge Raad Case No 17/04930 17/05713 17/05714

It follows from various Supreme Court judgments in the Netherlands that a loan is commercially irrational if no interest can be determined under which an independent third party would have been willing to grant the same loan. The consequence of a loan beeing deemed commercially irrational is that a loss is not deductible. This case addresses the implications of the Umbrella Judgement, in particular the question of how that judgment relates to case laws on unsecured loans and guarantees. The Advocate General concludes that the Umbrella Judgment is not applicable in this case and that the tax authorities has failed to demonstrate that an independent third party would not have been willing to enter a similar loan agreement. Click here for translation Nederland July 2018 ECLI NL PHR 2018 737 ... Read more
Germany vs Hornbach-Baumarkt, May 2018, European Court of Justice, C-382/16

Germany vs Hornbach-Baumarkt, May 2018, European Court of Justice, C-382/16

In the Hornbach-Baumarkt case, a German parent company guaranteed loans of two related companies for no remuneration. The German tax authorities made an assessment of the amount of income allocated to the parent company as a result of the guarantee, based on the fact that unrelated third parties, under the same or similar circumstances, would have agreed on a remuneration for the guarantees. Hornbach-Baumarkt argued that German legislation was in conflict with the EU freedom of establishment and lead to an unequal treatment of domestic and foreign transactions since, in a case involving german domestic transactions, no corrections to the income would have been made for guarantees granted to subsidiaries. The company further argued that the legislation is disproportionate to achieving the objectives as it provides no opportunity for the company to present commercial justification for the non-arm’s-length transaction. The German Court requested a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice on these arguments. In May 2018 The European ... Read more

TPG2017 Chapter I paragraph 1.167

The facts relating to S’s credit standing and borrowing power are identical to those in the preceding example. S borrows EUR 50 million from Bank A. The functional analysis suggests that Bank A would lend to S at an interest rate applicable to A rated borrowers without any formal guarantee. However, P agrees to guarantee the loan from Bank A in order to induce Bank A to lend at the interest rate that would be available to AAA rated borrowers. Under these circumstances, S should be required to pay a guarantee fee to P for providing the express guarantee. In calculating an arm’s length guarantee fee, the fee should reflect the benefit of raising S’s credit standing from A to AAA, not the benefit of raising S’s credit standing from Baa to AAA. The enhancement of S’s credit standing from Baa to A is attributable to the group synergy derived purely from passive association in the group which need not ... Read more
Germany vs C-GmbH, December 2014, Bundesfinanzhof, Case No I R 23/13

Germany vs C-GmbH, December 2014, Bundesfinanzhof, Case No I R 23/13

C-GmbH was the sole shareholder of I-GmbH. In 2000, I-GmbH, together with another company, set up a US company for the development of the US market, H-Inc., in which the I-GmbH held 60 per cent of the shares. H-Inc. received equity from the two shareholders and also received a bank loan of approx. $ 1.5 million (USD), which the shareholders secured through guarantees. As of December 31, 2003, the balance sheet of H-Inc. showed a deficit not covered by equity of approx. 950,000 USD. On June 30 , 2004,  I-GmbH became the sole shareholder of H-Inc. Then the bank put the H-Inc. granted loans due. Since H-Inc. was not able to serve the bank loan, C-GmbH paid the bank. As of December 31, 2004, the balance sheet of H-Inc. showed a deficit not covered by equity of approx. $ 450,000 , which at December 31 , 2005 amounted to approx. $ 1.6 million, as at 31 December 2006 $ 2.5 million ... Read more
France vs Carrefour, February 1992, Supreme Administrative Court no 81690/82782

France vs Carrefour, February 1992, Supreme Administrative Court no 81690/82782

In the French Carrefour case, the French Supreme Administrative Court considered a rate of 0.25% for a loan guarantee to be at arm’s length. According to the Court, the remuneration should be commensurate with the risk incurred as well as with the market value of this service, irrespective of the actual cost. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation Carrefour 1992_81690_82782_CE ... Read more
France vs. LAINIERE DE PICARDIE, March 1989, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 77581

France vs. LAINIERE DE PICARDIE, March 1989, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 77581

Article 9 of the Franco-Brazilian Tax Convention of 10 September 1971 contains provisions according to which, in the case of companies that are not at arm’s length from each other, profits that have been transferred directly or indirectly by a company of one of the contracting States to a company of the other contracting State may be included in the profits of the first company and taxed accordingly. It is clear from these provisions that they allow the administration of the State to which an enterprise which, by virtue of its situation and operations, falls within their scope belongs, to apply the domestic tax law. On the basis of the provisions of Article 57 of the CGI, the administration reintegrated into the company’s results subject to corporate income tax the commissions, evaluated at the rate of 0.50%, that the company should have received as remuneration for the guarantees that it had granted to its Brazilian subsidiary as a guarantee for ... Read more