Netherlands vs “Lux Credit B.V.”, July 2023, Court of Hague, Case No AWB – 21_4016 (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:12061)

Category: Burden of Proof, Financial Transactions, Transfer Pricing Documentation | Tag: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
« | »

“Lux Credit B.V.” took out various credit facilities from related parties [company name 2] s.a.r.l. and [company name 3] s.a.r.l. – both resident in Luxembourg.

These were financings whereby “Lux Credit facility B.V.” could draw funds (facilities) up to a pre-agreed maximum amount. In doing so, “Lux Credit B.V.” owed both interest and “commitment fees”. The commitment fees were calculated on the maximum amount of the facility. Interest and commitment fees were owed. The interest payable to [company name 2] and [company name 3], respectively, was calculated by deducting the commitment fees from the interest payable on the amount withdrawn, with interest payable on the amount withdrawn, the commitment fees owed after the due date and the interest owed after the due date. In its returns for the current financial years, “Lux Credit B.V.” charged both interest and commitment fees against taxable profit.

Following an audit, an assessment of additional taxable income was issued for the financial years 2012/2013 – 2016/2017. According to the tax authorities, the financial arrangement was not at arm’s length. The interest rate and commitment fees were adjusted and part of the loans were classified as equity.

A complaint was filed by “Lux Credit B.V.”

Judgement of the District Court

The Court found mainly in favour of Credit Facility B.V.. It upheld most of the adjustments relating to commitment fees, but overturned the adjustment to the interest rate. According to the Court, Lux Credit B.V. was entitled to an interest deduction for the years under review, calculated at the contractually agreed interest rate on the amounts actually borrowed.

Excerpts
“51. With regard to the transfer pricing documentation, the court considers the following. Although the documentation referred to in Section 8b(3) of the 1969 Vpb Act was not available at the time the defendant requested it, the claimant has remedied this defect by again preparing records to substantiate the conditions surrounding the facilities. In the court’s opinion, the defendant did not make it plausible with what it argued that the claimant’s administration contains such defects and shortcomings that it cannot serve as a basis for the profit calculation that must lead to the conclusion that the claimant did not file the required return.10 The court also took into account that the parliamentary history of Section 8b of the 1969 Vpb Act noted that the documentation requirement of Section 8b(3) of the 1969 Vpb Act relates to the availability of information necessary to assess whether the prices and conditions(transfer prices) used in affiliated relationships qualify as arm’s length. 11 In the court’s opinion, the defendant has not argued sufficiently to conclude that the transfer-pricing data further collected, prepared and documented by the claimant and the documents that were present at [company name 2] and [company name 3] on the determination of the credit ratings are so deficient that the claimant has not complied with the obligations of Section 8b(3) of the 1969 Income Tax Act. The fact that source documents for the period, in which the transactions were entered into, have not been preserved and the defendant has comments on the data used by the claimant and disagrees with the outcomes of the claimant, do not alter this.”

“56. In the court’s view, the defendant was right to make the adjustments in respect of commitment fees on facilities 1 and 3 for the years under review. The defendant was also correct in imposing the 2014/2015, 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 assessments to correct the commitment fees on Facility 7bn. In assessing whether the defendant was justified in making those corrections, the court relied on what [company name 1] and [company name 2] and [company name 3] agreed on civilly. The agreements between [company name 1] and [company name 2] and [company name 3] explicitly distinguish between interest due and commitment fees due. The court therefore rejects the plaintiff’s position that it must be assessed whether the total of the commitment fee and interest costs remained within the margins of Section 8b of the 1969 Vpb Act, and the commitment fee and interest costs should be considered together as an “all-in rate”. That the terms of Facilities 1, 3 and 7bn show similarities with Payment in Kind loans, as claimed by the claimant, does not make it necessary in this case to deviate from what the parties agreed under civil law. Indeed, the defendant has argued, with reasons, that stipulating headroom for the purpose of funding interest that may be credited, if the same facts and circumstances are present, is not usual in the market but it is usual in the market that over interest to be credited, a charge arises only at the time of the maturity of the interest. It is not usual that a charge – in this case in the form of commitment fees – is already due before the due date. This involves a double burden, as interest is also charged on the commitment fee. On the other hand, the plaintiff has not made it plausible that independent third-party parties were willing to agree such terms in similar circumstances, nor has it made its economic reality plausible. The court also took into account that the claimant did not make any calculations, prior to setting the maximum amount and commitment fees.

57. In the court’s view, the defendant was right to make the adjustments in respect of the commitment fees and interest payable thereon in respect of Facility 5. The defendant has made it plausible that such an agreement between independent third parties will not be concluded. The defendant was right to point out the following aspects:”

“In the court’s opinion, with what the defendant has put forward and also in view of what the claimant has put forward in response, the defendant has failed to make it plausible that the interest rates agreed by [company name 1] , [company name 2] and [company name 3] regarding facilities 1, 3 and 7bn are not in line with what would have been agreed by independent parties in the course of business. The documents submitted show that the group’s treasury department determined the creditworthiness of [company name 1] and the interest rates of the facilities were set on that basis. In determining the creditworthiness, existing implicit support of [company name 4] was taken into account. The defendant, by what it has argued, has not made it plausible that an independent third-party lender would have relied on the same rating as [company name 4] in determining [company name 1]’s creditworthiness and that [company name 1] would be able to obtain the same interest rates as [company name 4] without an explicit guarantee from [company name 4]. Since this is the core point of the defendant’s interest rate adjustment, this already removes the basis for that adjustment. In contrast to the statements of former bank employees submitted by the claimant that [company name 1] would not have been granted the same creditworthiness as [company name 4], the defendant has not submitted any statements or documents from other commercial lenders to suggest that this is the case. Furthermore, the defendant has not made it plausible that, if an independent lender were to classify [company name 1] as “highly strategic”, the corrections advocated by the defendant would have to be assumed, as the defendant has not sufficiently (numerically) substantiated this position. Even if the defendant’s comments on the determination of [company name 1]’s “credit rating” and the comparability analyses made by the group are correct, the defendant has not made it plausible that the interest rates are not in line with what would have been agreed on by independent parties in the course of trade, because the defendant has thereby not made it plausible that the interest rates agreed on by [company name 1] fall outside the permissible transfer pricing margin.”

Click here for English translation

Click here for other translation

Netherlands vs BV July 2023 Rechtbank Den Haag AWB - 21 _ 4016





Related Guidelines

  1. TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.97In the absence of comparable uncontrolled transactions, the cost of funds approach could be used as an alternative to price intra-group loans in some circumstances. The cost of funds will reflect the borrowing costs incurred by the lender in raising the funds to...
  2. TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.185Assume that S borrows EUR 50 million from an independent lender at the market rate of interest for borrowers with an A credit rating. Assume further that S simultaneously borrows EUR 50 million from T, another subsidiary of P, with similar characteristics as...
  3. TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.92In the search for comparability data, a comparable is not necessarily restricted to a stand-alone entity. In examining commercial loans, where the potentially comparable borrower is a member of an MNE group and has borrowed from an independent lender, provided all other economically...
  4. TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.72Publicly available financial tools are designed to calculate credit ratings. Broadly, these tools depend on approaches such as calculating the probability of default and of the likely loss should default occur to arrive at an implied rating for the borrowing. This can then...
  5. TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.58Borrowers seek to optimise their weighted average cost of capital and to have the right funding available to meet both short-term needs and long-term objectives. When considering the options realistically available to it, an independent business seeking funding operating in its own commercial...
  6. TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.60Macroeconomic circumstances may lead to changes in the financing costs in the market. In such a context, a transfer pricing analysis with regard to the possibilities of the borrower or the lender to renegotiate the terms of the loan to benefit from better...
  7. 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....
  8. TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.75In conducting a credit rating analysis, it is important to note that the financial metrics may be influenced by current and past controlled transactions (such as sales, or interest expenses). If it appears that such controlled transactions are not in accordance with the...
  1. German royalty barrier to counter IP box-regimesSome countries in Europe offer so-called IP or Patent boxes. To counter such tax practices, effective from 31 December 2017, Germany has introduced a new royalty barrier in ‘Law against Harmful Tax Practices in Connection with the Assignment of Rights. The law limits...
  2. Transfer Pricing in the Mining IndustryLike other sectors of the economy, there are base erosion and profit shifting risks in the mining sector. Based on the ongoing work on BEPS, the IGF (Intergovernmental Forum on Mining) and OECD has released guidance for source countries on transfer pricing in...

Related Case Law

  1. Liechtenstein vs A Trust, February 2018, Administrative Court, Case No VGH 2017/126A Trust submitted a tax return for 2014 in which an asset loan to C Trust in the amount of USD 5,393,695 (GBP 3,459,175) and a liability loan to the D Trust in the amount of USD 7,715,134 (GBP 4,948,000) had been declared....
  2. Finland vs. Corp, July 2014, Supreme Administrative Court HFD 2014:119A Ab had in 2009 from its majority shareholder B, based in Luxembourg, received a EUR 15 million inter-company loan. A Ab had in 2009 deducted 1,337,500 euros in interest on the loan. The loan had been granted on the basis that the banks financing A’s...
  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. Italy vs Edison s.p.a. April 2016, Supreme Court no 7493The Italien company had qualified a funding arrangement in an amount of Lira 500 billion classified by the parties as a non-interest-bearing contribution reserved for a future capital increase. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Italian Supreme Court found that intra-group financing agreements...