Tag: Loans

France vs SAS Wheelabrator Group, July 2019, Conseil d’Etat Opinion, No 429426

France vs SAS Wheelabrator Group, July 2019, Conseil d’Etat Opinion, No 429426

In an Opinion issued on 10 July 2019 on request from the Administrative Court of Versailles, the Conseil d’Etat states as a principle that the arm’s length nature of intra-group interest rate can be demonstrated by reference to comparable unrelated transactions, when these loans constitutes realistic alternatives to the intra-group loan. Excerpt from the Opinion “… 5. The rate that the borrowing enterprise could have obtained from independent financial establishments or organizations under similar conditions means, for the purposes of these provisions, the rate that such establishments or organizations would have been susceptible, account given its own characteristics, in particular its risk profile, to grant it for a loan with the same characteristics under arm’s length conditions. 6. This rate cannot, having regard to the difference in nature between a loan from a financial institution or body and financing by bond issue, be that which this enterprise would itself have been able to serve for subscribers if it had chosen to ... Continue to full case
European Commission vs. UK, October 2017, State aid, CFC

European Commission vs. UK, October 2017, State aid, CFC

The European Commission has opened an in-depth probe into a UK scheme that exempts certain transactions by multinational groups from the application of UK rules targeting tax avoidance. It will investigate if the scheme allows these multinationals to pay less UK tax, in breach of EU State aid rules. European Commission vs. UK, October 2017, state aid CFC ... Continue to full case
UK vs. Ladbroke Group, February 2017, case nr. UT/2016/0012 & 0013

UK vs. Ladbroke Group, February 2017, case nr. UT/2016/0012 & 0013

Tax avoidance scheme. Use of total return swap over shares in subsidiary to create a deemed creditor relationship. Value of shares depressed by novating liability for large loans to subsidiary. The scheme used by Ladbroke UK involved a total return swap and a novation of loans to extract reserves. Used to achieve a “synthetic transfer” of the JBB business to LB&G. In essence, this involved extracting the surplus which had accumulated in LGI and transferring it to LB&G prior to an actual sale of the JBB business to LB&G. The normal way to extract such reserves would be by a dividend payment. The Court ruled, that it is sufficient for the application of paragraph 13 (UK GAAR) that the relevant person has an unallowable purpose. Where the unallowable purpose is to secure a tax advantage for another person, HMRC do not have to show that the other person has in fact obtained a tax advantage, if the other person has been prevented ... 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
Spain vs. PEUGEOT CITROEN AUTOMOVILES, May 2016, Supreme Court, case nr. 58/2015

Spain vs. PEUGEOT CITROEN AUTOMOVILES, May 2016, Supreme Court, case nr. 58/2015

The company had deducted impairment losses recognised on an investment in an Argentinean company (recently acquired from a related entity) arising from the conversion into capital of loans granted to the entity by other group companies, loans which had been acquired by the Spanish taxpayer. The tax administration argued that acquisition of such loans would not have taken place between independent parties due to the economic situation in Argentina at that time. The Supreme Court considered this conclusion to be wrong for two reasons: From a technical point of view, it was unacceptable to consider that the loans had no market value, since economic reality shows that even in situations of apparent insolvency there is an active market to purchase loans that are apparently uncollectible. If the loans acquired could have a market value, it was not possible to deny that they had such value without proving it; and From a legal point of view, it was not possible to disregard transactions actually ... Continue to full case
Italy vs PDM D srl, 2016, Supreme Court case no. 6331-2016

Italy vs PDM D srl, 2016, Supreme Court case no. 6331-2016

This case is about intragroup financing between an Italian company and a related group company in Luxembourg. The Supreme Court stated that Italien Transfer pricing rules have the purpose of allowing the tax administration to control prices applied to commercial and/or financial transactions between controlled companies resident in different countries in order to avoid any “artificial” adjustments of these prices by the MNE for the purpose of optimizing the group’s tax burden, for example by channeling income to companies located in low tax jurisdictions (Luxembourg). Click here for translation Italy Corp-vs-Italy-6331-2016 ... Continue to full case
Finland vs. Corp, July 2014, Supreme Administrative Court HFD 2014:119

Finland vs. Corp, July 2014, Supreme Administrative Court HFD 2014:119

A Ab had in 2009 from its majority shareholder B, based in Luxembourg, received a EUR 15 million inter-company loan. A Ab had in 2009 deducted 1,337,500 euros in interest on the loan. The loan had been granted on the basis that the banks financing A’s operations had demanded that the company acquire additional financing, which in the payment scheme would be a subordinated claim in relation to bank loans, and by its nature a so-called IFRS hybrid, which the IFRS financial statements were treated as equity. The loan was guaranteed. The fixed annual interest rate on the loan was 30 percent. The loan could be paid only on demand by A Ab. The Finnish tax authorities argued that the legal form of the inter-company loan agreed between related parties should be disregarded, and the loan reclassified as equity. Interest on the loan would therefore not be deductible for A Ab. According to the Supreme Administrative Court interest on the loan was tax deductible. The Supreme Administrative ... 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
Switzerland vs Hotel X. SA, Nov. 2013, Courts of Switzerland, Case No. 2C_291 / 2013 / 2C_292 / 2013

Switzerland vs Hotel X. SA, Nov. 2013, Courts of Switzerland, Case No. 2C_291 / 2013 / 2C_292 / 2013

A loan was granted from a swiss company to its shareholder. The interest rate was fixed at 2,5%. This was found to be a hidden distribution of profit to the shareholder, cf Art. 58 al. 1 letter. b LIFD. Click here for english translation Hotel X vs switzerland ... 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
Netherlands vs Corp, 2011, Dutch Supreme Court, Case nr. 08/05323 (10/05161, 10/04588)

Netherlands vs Corp, 2011, Dutch Supreme Court, Case nr. 08/05323 (10/05161, 10/04588)

In this case, the Dutch Supreme Court further outlined the Dutch perspective on the distinction between debt and equity in its already infamous judgments on the so-called extreme default risk loan (EDR loan) L sold a securities portfolio to B for EUR 5.3 million against B’s acknowledgement of debt to L for the same amount. The debt was then converted into a 10 year loan with  an interest rate of 5% and a pledge on the portfolio. Both L and B were then moved to the Netherlands Antilles. Later on L deducted a EUR 1.2 mill. loss on the loan to B due to a decrease in value of the securities portfolio. The Dutch Tax Authorities disallowed the deduction based on the argument, that the loan was not a business motivated loan. The Dutch Supreme Court ruled that in principle civil law arrangement is decisive in regard to taxation. However there are exceptions in which a civil law loan arrangement can be disregarded ... 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
Norway vs. Telecomputing, June 2010, Supreme Court case nr. HR-2010-1072-A

Norway vs. Telecomputing, June 2010, Supreme Court case nr. HR-2010-1072-A

This case was about the qualification of capital transfers to a US subsidiary – whether the capital should be qualified as a loan (as done by the company) or as a equity contribution (as agrued by the tax administration). The Supreme Court concluded that the capital transfers to the subsidiary as a whole should be classified as loans. The form chosen by the company (loan) had an independent commercial rationale and Section 13-1 of the Tax Code did not allow for reclassification of the capital transfer The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Telecomputing AS. Click here for translation Norway rt-2010-s-790-Telecomputing-rentefritt-lån ... Continue to full case