Finland vs G Oy, December 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. KHO:2021:178

Category: Disallowed Deduction, Financial Transactions, General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR), Tax Avoidance Schemes | Tag: , , , , ,
« | »

At issue was whether interest expenses incurred as a result of intra-group liabilities related to the acquisition of shares were tax deductible.

In 2005, CA / S, indirectly owned by private equity investors A and B, had purchased a listed share in DA / S. DA / S’s subsidiary EA / S had established H AB in July 2008. On 25 August 2008, EA / S had transferred approximately 83.8 per cent of F Oy’s shares in kind to H AB and sold the remaining approximately 16.2 per cent at the remaining purchase price. On August 26, 2008, EA / S had subscribed for new shares in G Oy and paid the share subscription price in kind, transferring 56 percent of H AB’s shares. On August 27, 2008, G Oy had purchased the remaining 44 percent of H AB’s shares. EA / S had granted G Oy a loan corresponding to the purchase price, the interest expenses of which the company had deducted annually in its taxation. The share transfers in 2008 had been reported to be related to the 2005 acquisition and

In the share transfers carried out in 2008, EA / S’s direct holding in F Oy had been changed to indirect. The change in ownership structure was implemented within a short period of time as a series of share transfers. With the help of the share transfers, new debt relationships had been created in the Group, with the aim of transferring the interest burden on EA / S to G Oy corresponding to the purchase price of H AB’s shares. When the share transfers were considered as a whole, their purpose was to seek a tax advantage in the form of interest deductions. The share transfers had therefore not corresponded to the real nature or purpose of the case and were artificial in nature.

The Administrative Court held that when the share transfers were considered as a whole, their purpose was to seek a tax advantage in the form of interest deductions. The share transfers had therefore not corresponded to the real nature or purpose of the case and were artificial in nature. Hence, deductibility of the interest paid to the foreign group company could be denied on the basis of the tax avoidance provision.

This decision was appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court by the company.

Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court
The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the administrative court. It stated that the subsidiary had been used in a multi-stage arrangement within the group as a company acquiring shares and that the arrangement as a whole had to be considered wholly artificial.

According to the settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, national measures restricting the right to deduct interest do not infringe the freedom of establishment within the meaning of Article 49 TFEU if they deal only with purely artificial arrangements. The judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-484/19, Lexel, does not have to be considered as a change in this settled case law. In the light of these factors and the artificial nature of the present share transfers, the Supreme Administrative Court held that the denial of the right to deduct interest expenses accrued to G Oy under section 28 of the Tax Procedure Act was not contrary to Article 49 TFEU in the present case. The denial of the right to deduct interest expenses was also not contrary to the prohibition of discrimination in the Nordic tax treaty.

 

KHO 2021 178
Click here for English translation

Click here for other translation

KHO 2021 178





Related Guidelines

  1. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.15In considering whether a charge for the provision of services would be made between independent enterprises, it would also be relevant to consider the form that an arm’s length consideration would take had the transaction occurred between independent enterprises dealing at arm’s length....
  2. TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.105In their most common variation, economic models calculate an interest rate through a combination of a risk-free interest rate and a number of premiums associated with different aspects of the loan – e.g. default risk, liquidity risk, expected inflation or maturity. In some...
  3. TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.96In considering arm’s length pricing of loans, the issue of fees and charges in relation to the loan may arise. Independent commercial lenders will sometimes charge fees as part of the terms and conditions of the loan, for example arrangement fees or commitment...
  4. TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.83The purpose of covenants in a loan agreement is generally to provide a degree of protection to the lender and so limit its risk. That protection may be in the form of incurrence covenants or maintenance covenants....
  5. TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.76The effect of group membership is relevant for informing the conditions under which an MNE would have borrowed from an independent lender at arm’s length in two ways in particular. Firstly, the external funding policies and practices of group management will assist in...
  6. TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.66As a credit rating depends on a combination of quantitative and qualitative factors, there is still likely to be some variance in creditworthiness between borrowers with the same credit rating. In addition, when making comparisons between borrowers using the kind of financial metrics...
  7. TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.63Credit ratings can be determined for the overall creditworthiness of an MNE or MNE group4 or for a specific issuance of debt. As detailed in the following paragraphs, determining credit ratings requires consideration of quantitative – e.g. financial information – and qualitative factors...
  8. TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.106The reliability of economic models’ outcomes depends upon the parameters factored into the specific model and the underlying assumptions adopted. In evaluating the reliability of economic models as an approach to pricing intra-group loans it is important to note that economic models’ outcomes...
  1. Italien Transfer Pricing Guidelines, Ministerial Decree of 14 May 2018, published in the Official Gazette no. 118/2018Italien legislation on transfer pricing is contained in Article 110, paragraph 7 of the Consolidated Income Tax Act, where the first sentence states that “the components of income deriving from transactions with companies not resident in the territory of the State, which directly...
  2. New Zealand introduces Group Rating Approach for certain Cross-Border relatet party Borrowing and Debt ArrangementsThe OECD’s final report on interest limitation rules notes that thin capitalisation rules are vulnerable to loans with excessive interest rates and many transfer pricing practitioners finds that transfer pricing may not the most effective way to prevent profit-shifting using high-priced related party...

Related Case Law

  1. Portugal vs “A…, Sociedade Unipessoal LDA”, May 2023, Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, Case No JSTA000P31011“A…, Sociedade Unipessoal LDA” had taken out two intra group loans with the purpose of acquiring 70% of the shares in a holding company within the group. The tax authorities disallowed the resulting interest expenses claiming that the loan transactions lacked a business...
  2. Finland vs D Oy, December 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. KHO:2021:179At issue was whether interest expenses incurred as a result of intra-group liabilities related to the acquisition of shares were tax deductible. In August 2010, the Swedish companies H AB and B AB had agreed, among other things, to sell E Oy’s shares...
  3. Spain vs. PEUGEOT CITROEN AUTOMOVILES, May 2016, Supreme Court, case nr. 58/2015The 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...
  4. Philippines vs Belle Corporation, October 2006, Tax Court, CTA CASE No. 6156In this case, the tax authorities had issued an assessment to Belle Corporation pursuant to Section 43 (now Section 50) of the National Internal Revenue Code. The tax authorities alleges that Belle’s granting of advances to its affiliates is tantamount to granting loan...