The case:
Is each of six similar structured finance transactions entered into by the plaintiffs (the BNZ) a ‘tax avoidance arrangement’ void under s BG 1 Income Tax Act 1994? That is the primary issue in these five consolidated proceedings brought by the BNZ against the Commissioner, challenging his assessments issued after he voided each of the transactions pursuant to s BG 1. The BNZ claims the transactions are not caught by s BG 1.
A second issue, arising only if s BG 1 applies, is the correctness of the way in which the Commissioner has, pursuant to s GB 1, counteracted the tax advantage obtained by the BNZ under the transactions. The Commissioner disallowed the deductions claimed by the BNZ, as its costs of the transactions. The BNZ claims the deductions should be disallowed only to the extent they are excessive or ‘overmarket’.
A third, and perhaps strictly antecedent, issue is whether the guarantee arrangement fee (GAF) or guarantee procurement fee (GPF) charged in each transaction is properly deductible under s BD 2.
The transactions are so-called ‘repo’ deals: the BNZ made an equity investment in an overseas entity on terms requiring the overseas counterparty to repurchase that investment when the transaction terminated. The transactions were structured to enable the BNZ to deduct its expenses of earning the income yielded by its investment, while receiving that income free of tax. In the case of the first transaction, that tax relief resulted from a credit for foreign tax paid. The BNZ’s income from the five subsequent transactions was relieved of tax by the conduit regime. That domestic tax ‘asymmetry’ – tax deductible costs earning tax exempted income – made the transactions highly profitable for the BNZ.
The BNZ contends each of these transactions involved real obligations, notably those resulting from the BNZ raising $500 million on the New Zealand money market and advancing that to the counterparty upon a repo obligation. Further, the BNZ’s case is that the transactions made legitimate use both of crossborder tax arbitrage and the domestic tax ‘asymmetry’ just described. Cross-border tax arbitrage refers to the different tax treatment of the transaction in New Zealand and the foreign counterparty’s jurisdiction. New Zealand tax law treated the transactions as equity investments, the counterparties’ jurisdictions (the United States of America for the first three transactions; the United Kingdom for the later three) as secured loans. That enabled the counterparties to deduct, as interest, the distribution they made which the BNZ received free of tax in New Zealand. The BNZ submits that the evidence establishes that “tax driven structures and tax arbitrage are common and accepted elements of international finance”. The Bank says the central or critical question in the case is the appropriate approach in law to the asymmetry between deductible expenditure and tax relieved income around which these transactions or arrangements were structured.
The essential bases on which the Commissioner asserts s BG 1 catches the transactions are:
a) They substantially altered the incidence of tax for the BNZ. Indeed, that was their only purpose or effect. It certainly was not a merely incidental purpose or effect. The Commissioner adopted the description of one of his witnesses:
… A prime purpose of the profit-maximising actions of these transactions was to use the tax base to make money.
They had no commercial purpose or rationale. Absent the tax benefits they generated, the transactions were loss-making, in that the BNZ provided funding to the counterparties at substantially less than its cost of funds. The Commissioner contended “the tax tail wagged the commercial dog”.
They were not within the scheme and purpose of the regimes they utilised to generate tax exempted income, the foreign tax credit (FTC) and conduit relief regimes respectively. In the case of the FTC regime utilised by the first (Gen Re 1) transaction, the transaction also did not comply with the applicable specific provisions.
d) The principal deductible expenses claimed by the BNZ (the fixed rate it paid on an interest rate swap and the GAFs or GPFs) were contrived and artificial.
e) The transactions were structured on a formulaic basis, which had the artificial consequence that, the higher the transaction costs, the higher the tax benefits they generated.
The six transactions in issue span eight income tax years between 1998 and 2005. Three further transactions, two of them earlier in time, also featured in the evidence. While those three further transactions have a similar structure, they have the distinguishing feature of being New Zealand tax positive. The BNZ obtained binding rulings from the Commissioner on each of those three transactions, which I will call ‘the ruled transactions’.
Approximately $416 million of tax hinges on the outcome of these proceedings. Challenge proceedings brought by the Westpac Banking Corporation began in Auckland on 30 June. Proceedings brought by other New Zealand trading banks have yet to come on for trial. If occasional press reports are accurate, the total amount of tax in issue is over $1.5 billion.
The Court found in favor of the tax authorities.
The case was later settled out of court.
New Zealand vs BNZ Investments Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue 15 july 2009