Tag: Tax losses

Czech Republic vs DFH Haus CZ s.r.o., November 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 4 Afs 287/2020-54

Czech Republic vs DFH Haus CZ s.r.o., November 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 4 Afs 287/2020-54

In 2013, DFH Haus CZ s.r.o. filed amended tax returns for 2006, 2010, and 2011, following the German tax authority’s adjustment of its transfer prices in 2006, in order to claim the resulting tax loss for 2006 and apply it against its tax liability in the Czech Republic for 2010 and 2011. The tax authorities disallowed the amendments. A complaint filed by DFH with the district court was dismissed and an appeal was then filed with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgement of the Court The Court rejected DFH’s arguments that the tax loss must be allowed under the Czech-German income tax treaty. DFH could not reduce its tax liabilities in the Czech Republic in 2010 and 2011 with the 2006 tax loss resulting from the German transfer pricing adjustment. The Court noted that the usual purpose of double taxation treaties is to regulate the place where income is taxed, but the actual rules for taxation or the deduction of expenses ... Read more
UK vs Union Castle Ltd, April 2020, UK Court of Appeal, Case No A3/2018/3003 and 3004

UK vs Union Castle Ltd, April 2020, UK Court of Appeal, Case No A3/2018/3003 and 3004

Union Castle Ltd. claimed a tax deduction of £ 39 million related to losses on derivative contracts. After acquiring derivative contracts, Union Castle issued bonus A shares to it’s parent company, Caledonia, which carried a dividend equal to 95% of the cash-flows arising on the close-out of the contracts. Therefore Union Castle had written off 39 million of the value of the contracts in it’s accounts. The tax authorities disagreed that a tax loss had been suffered and issued an assessment disallowing the loss. The Tribunal found in favor of the tax authorities. Capital transactions are subject of the UK transfer pricing rules. Issuing of shares meets the requirements of “making or imposing conditions in commercial and financial relations” as required by Article 9 of the OECD Model Convention. OECD TPG apply to debt financing. Share transactions, which have an effect on income taxation, must be within the UK transfer pricing rules. The Cases was then brought before the Court ... Read more
Telenor will have to pay additional taxes of 2.5 billion Norwegian crowns

Telenor will have to pay additional taxes of 2.5 billion Norwegian crowns

Telenor Norway has received a tax assessment according to which the company will have to pay additional taxes in Norway of 2.5 billion Norwegian crowns for tax year 2013. A deduction expenced in 2013 for a loss suffered in 2012 due to settlement of bank guarantees given in respect of external funding in its Indian subsidiary Unitech Wireless has been disallowed for tax purposes by the Norwegian Tax Authorities Telenor decided to enter the market in India in 2008. In 2012, the Supreme Court of India revoked the licenses of the Telenor mobile company and seven other mobile companies. In the fall of 2012, Telenor paid around NOK 4.2 billion to buy back licenses in six of 22 telecommunications regions. Following a dispute with Telenor’s Indian partnership – Unitech – the parties agreed to transfer all the valuables of their joint unit company Mobile Unitech Wireless to a Telenor-controlled company – Telenor India. In the annual report for 2018, Telenor ... Read more
UK vs Union Castle Ltd, October 2018, UK Upper Tribunal, Case No 0316 (TCC)

UK vs Union Castle Ltd, October 2018, UK Upper Tribunal, Case No 0316 (TCC)

Union Castle Ltd. claimed a tax deduction of £ 39 million related to losses on derivative contracts. After acquiring derivative contracts, Union Castle issued bonus A shares to it’s parent company, Caledonia, which carried a dividend equal to 95% of the cash-flows arising on the close-out of the contracts. Therefore Union Castle had written off 39 million of the value of the contracts in it’s accounts. The tax authorities disagreed that a tax loss had been suffered and issued an assessment disallowing the loss. The Tribunal found in favor of the tax authorities. Capital transactions are subject of the UK transfer pricing rules. Issuing of shares meets the requirements of “making or imposing conditions in commercial and financial relations” as required by Article 9 of the OECD Model Convention. OECD TPG apply to debt financing. Share transactions, which have an effect on income taxation, must be within the UK transfer pricing rules. Click here for translation Union_Castle_Mail_Steamship_Company_Ltd_and_HMRC ... 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
Switzerland vs. Corp, Juli 2012, Federal Supreme Court, Case No. 2C_834-2011, 2C_836-2011

Switzerland vs. Corp, Juli 2012, Federal Supreme Court, Case No. 2C_834-2011, 2C_836-2011

In this ruling, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court comments on the application of the arm’s length principel and the burden of proff in Switzerland. “Services, which have their legal basis in the investment relationship, are to be offset against the taxable income of the company to the extent that they would otherwise not be granted to a third party under the same circumstances or not to the same extent and would not constitute a capital repayment. This rule of the so-called third-party comparison (or the principle of “dealing at arm’s length”) therefore requires that even legal transactions with equity holders or between Group companies be conducted on the same terms as would be agreed with external third parties on competitive and market conditions.” “Swiss Law – with the exception of individual provisions – does not have any actual group law and treats each company as a legally independent entity with its own bodies which have to transact the business in ... Read more