Tag: Tax schemes

US vs Pacific management Group, August 2018, US Tax Court Case, Memo 2018-131

US vs Pacific management Group, August 2018, US Tax Court Case, Memo 2018-131

This case concerned a tax scheme where taxable income was eliminated using factoring and management fees to shift profits. The Tax Court held that the scheme was in essence an attempt to eliminate the taxes. Factoring and management fees were not deductible expenses but rather disguised distributions of corporate profits and generally currently taxable to the individual shareholders as constructive dividends or as income improperly assigned to the corporations. In the TC Memo interesting views on the arm’s length nature of factoring and management fees is elaborated upon. TC memo 2018-131 US vs Pacific management Group 20aug 2018 TC memo 2018-131 ... Continue to full case
Norway vs. A AS, October 2017, Tax Tribunal, NS 71/2017

Norway vs. A AS, October 2017, Tax Tribunal, NS 71/2017

A Norwegian company, A, first acquired shares in Company C from a unrelated party D for tNKR 625. Company A then transferred the acquired shares in C to a subsidiary E, a shell company established by C for the purpose of the transaction. Company A then sold the shares in subsidiary E to the unrelated party D, from which it had originally bought the shares in C, for tNKR 3830, a price almost six times higher than the acquisition price, in a tax free transfer. Based on these facts, the Norwegian tax administration adjusted the price of the intra-group transfer shares in C from A to E. The Norwegian tax tribunal decided that the valuation af the shares in the intra-group transfer could be based on a linear appreciation in the share value. Click here for translation Norway vs AS 27 november 2017 SKATTEKLAGENEMDA NS 71-2017 ... Continue to full case
New Zealand vs Honk Land Trustee Limited, 10 March 2017, Court of Appeal

New Zealand vs Honk Land Trustee Limited, 10 March 2017, Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal upheld decisions of the High Court confirming the Commissioner of Inland Revenue’s disallowance of a $1,116,000 management fee for income tax purposes. The Court of Appeal dismissed Honk Land Trustees Limited’s (“HLT”) appeal on the following alternative grounds: (1) there was no satisfactory evidence to show that management services were in fact provided; (2) there was no sufficient nexus shown; and (3) in the event the management fees were deductible, they were nevertheless part of a void tax avoidance arrangement. Additionally, the Court of Appeal agreed that the Commissioner was entitled to impose abusive tax position shortfall penalties. NewZealand vs Honk-Land-Trustees-Limited-v-Commissioner-of-Inland-Revenue ... 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
Norway vs. IKEA Handel og Ejendom, October 2016, HRD 2016-722

Norway vs. IKEA Handel og Ejendom, October 2016, HRD 2016-722

In 2007, IKEA reorganised its property portfolio in Norway so that the properties were demerged from the Norwegian parent company and placed in new, separate companies. The shares in these companies were placed in a newly established property company, and the shares in this company were in turn sold to the original parent company, which then became an indirect owner of the same properties. The last acquisition was funded through an inter-company loan. Based on the non-statutory anti-avoidance rule in Norwegian Tax Law, the Supreme Court concluded that the parent company could not be allowed to deduct the interest on the inter-company loan, as the main purpose of the reorganisation was considered to be to save tax. The anti-avoidance rule in section 13-1 of the Tax Act did not apply in this circumstance. Click here for translation Norway vs IKEA-Handel-og-Ejendom-HRD-2016-722 ... Continue to full case
Norway vs. ConocoPhillips, October 2016, Supreme Court HR-2016-988-A, Case No. 2015/1044)

Norway vs. ConocoPhillips, October 2016, Supreme Court HR-2016-988-A, Case No. 2015/1044)

A tax assessments based on anti-avoidance doctrine “gjennomskjæring” were set aside. The case dealt with the benefits of a multi-currency cash pool arrangement. The court held that the decisive question was whether the allocation of the benefits was done at arm’s length. The court dismissed the argument that the benefits should accure to the parent company as only common control between the parties which should be disregarded. The other circumstances regarding the actual transaction should be recognized when pricing the transaction. In order to achieve an arm’s length price, the comparison must take into account all characteristics of the controlled transaction except the parties’ association with each other. While the case was before the Supreme Court, the Oil Tax Board made a new amendment decision, which also included a tax assessment for 2002. This amendment, which was based on the same anti-avoidance considerations, was on its own to the company’s advantage. Following the Supreme Court judgment, a new amended decision was made in 2009, which reversed the anti-avoidance decision for all three years ... Continue to full case
Australia vs. Orica Limited, December 2015 Federal Court, FCA 1399; 2015 ATC 20-547.

Australia vs. Orica Limited, December 2015 Federal Court, FCA 1399; 2015 ATC 20-547.

The Orica case involve funding of an overseas entity or operations by an Australian entity, where the funds are subsequently provided back to the Australian entity or its Australian associate in a manner which purportedly generates Australian tax deductions while not generating corresponding Australian assessable income (Free dip). The arrangements essentially involve the “round robin” movement of funds where an entity claims income tax deductions in Australia for costs of borrowing or obtaining other financial benefits (including satisfaction of liabilities) from an overseas party the loan or other financial benefit provided by the overseas party is in substance funded, directly or indirectly, by an investment by the entity claiming the deductions or its Australian associate the return on the Australian investment, reflecting the financing costs payable to the overseas party, comes back to Australia in a non-taxable or concessionally taxed form, for example, as a distribution from an overseas subsidiary which is not assessable under Subdivision 768-A of the Income Tax Assessment Act ... Continue to full case
Australia vs. Chevron Australia Holdings Pty Ltd . October 2015, Federal Court of Australia, case No. 3 and 4

Australia vs. Chevron Australia Holdings Pty Ltd . October 2015, Federal Court of Australia, case No. 3 and 4

The Australien Chevron case was about a $US 2.5 billion intercompany loan between Chevron Australia and its US subsidiary, Chevron Texaco, and whether the interest paid on the loan by Chevron Australia exceeded the arm’s length price. Chevron Australia had set up a company in the US, Chevron Texaco Funding Corporation, which borrowed money in US dollars at an interest rate of 1.2% and then made an Australian dollar loan at 8.9% to the Australian parent company. This 8,9% interest increased Chevron Australia’s costs, and reduced taxable profits. These interest payments, which was not taxed in the US, came back to Australia in the form of tax free dividends. The US company was just a shell created for the sole purpose of raising funds in the commercial paper market and then lending those funds to the Australian company. Chevron argued that the 8,9% interest rate was taking into account the risk of raising loans written in US dollars and then turning that into an Australian dollar loan. The Court ruled in favor ... Continue to full case
US Senate Hearings on Offshore Profit Shifting and Abusive Tax Schemes 

US Senate Hearings on Offshore Profit Shifting and Abusive Tax Schemes 

See the documents from the US Senate hearings on offshore profit shifting and abusive tax schemes https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/issues/tax-havens-and-abusive-tax-schemes Offshore Profit Shifting and the U.S. Tax Code – Part 1 (Microsoft & Hewlett-Packard) and Part 2 (Apple Inc.), Carl Levin’s opening statements. Profit Shifting Part 1, September 2012 OPENING, LEVIN-Carl US Senate hearing on Profit Shifting, May 2013, OPENING LEVIN-Carl ... Continue to full case
France vs SARL Garnier Choiseul Holding, 17 July 2013, CE No 352989

France vs SARL Garnier Choiseul Holding, 17 July 2013, CE No 352989

This case is about the importance of proving that the transaction has a real economic purpose, and that it does not artificially seek to achieve tax benefits. The courts also consider the spirit of the law, for example, the purpose of the tax exemptions relating to parent-subsidiary distributions is to involve the parent company in the business of the subsidiary. Click here for translation France vs SARL Garnier Choiseul Holding Conseil_d_État_9ème___10ème_SSR_17_07_2013_352989 ... Continue to full case
New Zealand vs Alesco New Zealand Ltd March 2013 Court of Appeal NZCA 40

New Zealand vs Alesco New Zealand Ltd March 2013 Court of Appeal NZCA 40

In 2003 Alesco NZ bought two other companies in New Zealand. Its Australian owner, Alesco Corporation, funded the acquisitions by advancing the purchase amount of $78 million. In consideration Alesco NZ issued a series of optional convertible notes (OCNs or notes). The notes were non-interest bearing for a fixed term and on maturity the holder was entitled to exercise an option to convert the notes into shares. Between 2003 and 2008 Alesco NZ claimed deductions for amounts treated as interest liabilities on the notes in accordance with relevant accounting standards and a determination issued by the Commissioner against its liability to taxation in New Zealand. In the High Court Heath the Commissioner’s treatment of the OCN funding structure as a tax avoidance arrangement under section BG 1 of the Income Tax Act of 1994 and the Income Tax Act of 2004 was upheld. NewZealand-vs-Alesco-New-Zealand-Ltd-March-2013 ... Continue to full case
Canada vs. McKesson. October 2012. Tax Court

Canada vs. McKesson. October 2012. Tax Court

McKesson is a multinational group involved in wholesale distribution of pharmaceuticals. Its Canadian subsidiary entered into a receivables sales (factoring) agreement with its direct parent, McKesson International Holdings III Sarl in Luxembourg in 2002. Under the agreement, McKesson International Holdings III Sarl agreed to purchase the receivables for about C$460 million and committed to purchasing all the eligible receivables as they arose for the next five years. The price of the receivables was determined at a discount of 2.206 percent from the face amount. The funding to buy the receivables was borrowed in Canadian dollars from an indirect parent company of McKesson International Holdings III Sarl in Ireland and guaranteed by another indirect parent in Luxembourg. The Court didn’t recharacterize the transactions. The Court emphasized that the Canadian Income Tax Act was the only legally binding clause on appeal before the court and that the practice of the CRA under the OECD guidelines was irrelevant. This case recognizes the need to consider other factors (for example, a series ... Continue to full case
Italy vs Take Two Interactive Italia s.r.l., July 2012, Supreme Court, no 11949/2012

Italy vs Take Two Interactive Italia s.r.l., July 2012, Supreme Court, no 11949/2012

In this case the Italien company, T. S.r.l. is entirely controlled by H. S.A., registered in Switzerland, and is part of the American multinational group T., being its only branch in Italy for the exclusive marketing of its software products (games for personal computers, play station, etc.). T. S.r.l. imports these products through T. Ltd (which is also part of the same multinational group and controlled by the same parent company), which is registered in the United Kingdom and is the sole supplier of the products that are marketed by the Italian branch. On 31st October 2004 (the last day of the financial year), T. S.r.l. posted an invoice that the British company T. Ltd had issued on that date for £ 947,456. This accounts document referred to “Price adjustment to product sold during FY 2003/2004”, and charges the Italian company with adjustment increases to previously applied prices relative to certain software products the company had purchased during the aforesaid ... Continue to full case
India vs Vodafone International Holdings BV, 2012, Supreme Court

India vs Vodafone International Holdings BV, 2012, Supreme Court

In the Vodafone case, the Supreme Court of India found that tax planning within the law will be valid as long as it does not amount to a colourable device. India Vodafone-International-Holding-BV-2012 ... Continue to full case
India vs Azadi Bachao Andolan, 2003, Supreme Court

India vs Azadi Bachao Andolan, 2003, Supreme Court

In this case the Court held that while a “colourable device” could result in the transaction being considered a sham, that did not mean that tax planning within the law will not be permitted. India vs Azadi-Bachao-Andolan ... Continue to full case