Tag: No substance

Germany vs Cyprus Ltd, June 2018, BFH judgment Case No IR 94/15

Germany vs Cyprus Ltd, June 2018, BFH judgment Case No IR 94/15

The Bundesfinanzhof confirmed prior case law according to which the provisions on hidden deposits and hidden profit distributions must be observed in the context of the additional taxation. On the question of economic activity of the controlled foreign company, the Bundesfinanzhof refers to the ruling of the European Court of Justice concerning Cadbury-Schweppes from 2006. According to paragraphs §§ 7 to 14 in the Außensteuergesetz (AStG) profits from controlled foreign companies without business activity can be taxed in Germany. In the case at hand the subsidiary was located in a rented office in Cyprus and employed a resident managing director. Her job was to handle correspondence with clients, to carry out and supervise payment transactions, manage business records and keep records. She was also entrusted with obtaining book licenses to order these sub-licenses for the benefit of three of Russia’s and Ukraine’s affiliates, which distributed the books in the Russian-speaking market. The license income earned by subsidiary was taxed at ... Read more
India vs. Li & Fung (Trading) Ltd. March 2016, ITTA

India vs. Li & Fung (Trading) Ltd. March 2016, ITTA

Li & Fung (Trading) Ltd., Hong Kong, entered into contracts with its global third party customers for provision of sourcing services with respect to products to be sourced by such global customers directly from third party vendors in India. For the sourcing services, the Hong Kong company received a 5% commission of the FOB value of goods sourced. The company in India was providing sourcing support services to the Hong Kong group company, and remunerated at cost plus 5 percent mark-up for provision of these services. The tax administration found that the the company in India should get the 5% commission on the free on board (FOB) value of the goods sourced from India as the Hong Kong company contributed no value. The Tribunal held that the compensation received by the company in Hong Kong – 5% of the FOB value – should be distributed between the company in India and the company in Hong Kong in the ratio of 80:20 based on there functional profiles. • The company in India had actually performed all ... Read more
Switzerland vs. Finanz AG, Oct. 2012, Federal Supreme Court, Case No 2C_708/2011

Switzerland vs. Finanz AG, Oct. 2012, Federal Supreme Court, Case No 2C_708/2011

A company of a Swiss based group maintained a permanent establishment in the Cayman Islands for financing the domestic group companies. Whereas the group companies were able to deduct the interest payments from the taxable profit to their full extent, the interest income, for Swiss tax purposes, was allocated to the permanent establishment in the Cayman Islands, and therefore led to non-taxation of this interest income. By interpreting the legal term “foreign permanent establishment” the Federal Supreme Court concluded that the finance company in the Cayman Islands had only four employees and that such a lean structures was in contrast to the figures in the annual accounts. Therefore, it denied the allocation of interest income to the Cayman Islands for Swiss tax purposes. Click here for English translation Federal Tax Administration against X. Finanz AG ... Read more
New Zealand vs Ben Nevis Forestry Ventures Ltd., December 2008, Supreme Court, Case No [2008] NZSC 115, SC 43/2007 and 44/2007

New Zealand vs Ben Nevis Forestry Ventures Ltd., December 2008, Supreme Court, Case No [2008] NZSC 115, SC 43/2007 and 44/2007

The tax scheme in the Ben Nevis-case involved land owned by the subsidiary of a charitable foundation being licensed to a group of single purpose investor loss attributing qualifying companies (LAQC’s). The licensees were responsible for planting, maintaining and harvesting the forest through a forestry management company. The investors paid $1,350 per hectare for the establishment of the forest and $1,946 for an option to buy the land in 50 years for half its then market value. There were also other payments, including a $50 annual license fee. The land had been bought for around $580 per hectare. This meant that the the investors, if it wished to acquire the land after harvesting the forest, had to pay half its then value, even though they had already paid over three times the value at the inception of the scheme. In addition to the above payments, the investors agreed to pay a license premium of some $2 million per hectare, payable ... Read more