Tag: Parent company guarantee

India vs Aegis Ltd, January 2018, High Court of Bombay, Case No 1248 of 2016

India vs Aegis Ltd, January 2018, High Court of Bombay, Case No 1248 of 2016

Aegis Ltd had advanced money to an assosiated enterprice (AE)  and recived preference shares carrying no dividend in return. The Indian Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) held that the “acqusition of preference shares” were in fact equivalent to an interest free loan advanced by Aegis Ltd to the assosiated enterprice and accordingly re-characterised the transaction and issued an assessment for 2009 and 2010 where interest was charged on notional basis. Aegis Ltd disagreed with the assessment of the TPO and brought the case before the Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal did not accept the conclusions of the TPO. “The TPO cannot disregard the apparent transaction and substitute the same without any material of exceptional circumstances pointing out that the assessee had tried to conceal the real transaction or that the transaction in question was sham. The Tribunal observed that the TPO cannot question the commercial expediency of the assessee entered into such transaction.“ The Indian Revenue Service then filed an appeal to the High ... Continue to full case
US vs Container Corp., May 2011, US COURT OF APPEALS, No. 10-60515

US vs Container Corp., May 2011, US COURT OF APPEALS, No. 10-60515

In this case a US subsidiary, Container Corp, had paid guaranty fees to its foreign parent company Vitro in Mexico. In the US tax return, the fee had been considered analogous to payments for services, and the income was sourced outside the United States and not subject to withholding tax. The IRS held that the guaranty fees were more closely analogized to interest and thus subject to withholding taxes of 30 %. The Tax Court issued an opinion siding with Container Corp. The Commissioner brought the opinion before the US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals also found in favor of Container Corp. “To determine what class of income guaranty fees fall within or may be analogized to, the court must look to the “substance of the transaction”. The Commissioner contends the guaranty fees are more closely analogized to interest, while Container Corporation argues that the fees are more closely analogous to payment for services.” “The source of payments ... Continue to full case
Canada vs. General Electric Capital. November 2010

Canada vs. General Electric Capital. November 2010

In the case of General Electric Capital, Canada, the issue was if a 1% guarantee fee  paid by General Electric Capital Canada Inc. to its AAA-rated US parent company satisfied the arm’s length test. The Canadian tax administration argued  that implicit support resulted in General Electric Canada having a AAA credit rating, so that the guarantee provided by the US parent had no value. Taxpayer argued that the 1% guarantee fee did not exceed arm’s length pricing and that implicit support from the US parent should be ignored since it stemmed from the non-arm’s length relationship. The Tax Court agreed with the tax administration that implicit support should be taken into account and applied a “yield approach,” comparing the interest rate the Canadian company would have paid with and without the guarantee. The Tax Court found that credit rating of the Canadian company – with implicit support but without the guarantee – was at most BBB-/BB+ and the 1% guarantee was arm’s length. The Federal Court of Appeal approved of both the Tax Court’s yield approach and its ... Continue to full case